* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > News: next-20121115 (i.e. tomorrow) will be the last release until > > > > next-20121126 (which should be just be after -rc7, I guess - assuming > > > > that Linus does not release v3.7 before then), so if you want something > > > > in linux-next for a reasonable amount of testing, it should probably be > > > > committed tomorrow. > > > > > > 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'm eyeing a v3.8 merge... modulo unforeseen problems. This has been going on for way too long. numa/core performs very well, and the rest can be done iteratively. The mm/ bits changed very little due to the latest rounds of review. Most of the discussion centered around specific implementational details and naming - and where we were wrong I changed the code - numa/core sums up the consensus so far. If I missed anything let me know and I'll fix the code ASAP ... 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
