* Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:16:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > > kernel/sched/core.c between commit 8c79a045fd59 ("sched/events: Revert
> > > trace_sched_stat_sleeptime()") from Linus' tree and commit 1cf00341547a
> > > ("sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler hook")
> > > from the arm tree.
> > >
> > > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> > > necessary.
> >
> > This commit seems simple enough and has PeterZ's ack, but if
> > there are more scheduler patches coming in this area then
> > please send it to the scheduler tree first: we can create a
> > pullable, stable topic branch for it which the ARM tree can
> > then use.
> >
> > That approach would also avoid conflicts as a side effect.
>
> Please check your mailbox:
I'm aware of that old thread, I'd just prefer to hear about your
plans patching the scheduler *before* you commit it to
linux-next ;-)
Please make sure none of these scheduler patches go to the ARM
tree without a proper Git space solution that involves the
scheduler folks.
Thanks,
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
