Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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