On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:15:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:56:35 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > It would help if the old sched/numa code wasn't in -next while > > > > you're away. That would give me a clean run at 3.7 and will > > > > make it easier for others to integrate and test the four(!) > > > > different autoschednumacore implementations on top of > > > > linux-next. > > > > > > > > Pretty please? > > > > > > The next integration should have this solved: I have removed the > > > old sched/numa bits, replaced by the latest rebased/reworked > > > numa/core bits. > > > > That solves one problem, but I still need to route around the numa > > stuff when preparing the 3.8-rc1 merge. Again! > > I am not sure what is actually involved here, but would it help if I > made you a new akpm-base with the old tip tree replaced by the new one > that Ingo just pushed out? Or are there still problematic things in the > tip tree? If this new code is targeted at 3.9 as I'm suggesting then it should go into -next after 3.8-rc1, so the sched/numa part of -tip should be omitted from -next until then. If instead the plan is to merge it all into 3.8 then -tip should go into -next as-is. How's your crystal ball? -- 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
