* Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:56:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, you're blaming the wrong person. I got the commit via > > > a pull, not via a patch. > > > > This is the most idiotic excuse I've ever read. > > Sod this crap, I'm dropping Catalin's patches. [...] As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary - but if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free to pull the patch from tip:sched/arch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/arch HEAD: 01f23e1630 sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback it's v3.3-rc7 based so it will generate no conflict with linux-next. It only contains this commit so you can use it without pulling in other pending scheduler changes. This is the trivial and easy Git based topic branch approach PeterZ asked Russell a month ago to consider: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232 which request Russell sadly ignored. In any case, Catalin's ARM work is not blocked in any fashion. 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
