|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org> |
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14 |
|| ||Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:39:29 +0100|
|| ||Stephen Rothwell <sfr-AT-canb.auug.org.au>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd-AT-google.com>|
|| ||Article, Thread
* Andrew Morton <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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 ...
to post comments)