* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 11/27/2009 03:13 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> My position on this is rather clear: i want no new callbacks and no > >>> changes to callbacks in the scheduler until this situation is cleaned > >>> up. Five callback sites are _way_ too much - so if you want to add > >>> callbacks or change them, please clean it up and improve it first. > >> > >> Even changes which cause no functional differences? [...] > > > > Such as enabling preempt notifiers unconditionally? That's a functional > > change - it turns a so-far optional callback into an essentially > > mandatory one. > > No, I'm not gonna do that. Just patches to reorganize code so that > unnecessary conflicts won't occur. There will be NO functional > changes. Not without the other changes - which you want to do too, right? Please send all sched.c modifications via the scheduler tree. Going via other trees is fine when there's agreement by the maintainers - but this is one of the rare cases where that's not the case. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
