Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8

[Posted December 3, 2013 by corbet]

From:		Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org>
To:		Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>
Subject:		Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8
Date:		Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:38:55 +0200
Message-ID:		<20131014123855.GA25046@gmail.com>
Cc:		Juri Lelli <juri.lelli-AT-gmail.com>, tglx-AT-linutronix.de, mingo-AT-redhat.com, rostedt-AT-goodmis.org, oleg-AT-redhat.com, fweisbec-AT-gmail.com, darren-AT-dvhart.com, johan.eker-AT-ericsson.com, p.faure-AT-akatech.ch, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, claudio-AT-evidence.eu.com, michael-AT-amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi-AT-gmail.com, tommaso.cucinotta-AT-sssup.it, nicola.manica-AT-disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni-AT-unitn.it, dhaval.giani-AT-gmail.com, hgu1972-AT-gmail.com, paulmck-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin-AT-linux.it, insop.song-AT-gmail.com, liming.wang-AT-windriver.com, jkacur-AT-redhat.com, harald.gustafsson-AT-ericsson.com, vincent.guittot-AT-linaro.org, bruce.ashfield-AT-windriver.com--no-chain-reply-to
Archive‑link:		Article


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:43:32PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > here we go with a new version of the SCHED_DEADLINE patchset (v8). I know that
> > it has been a while since I released last version [1], but I thought not to
> > spam the mailing list with simple updates. Well... this IS basically an update
> > to 3.12-rc5, but it comes right before the next Kernel Summit and Real Time
> > Linux Workshop and, since I'll be present at both events, it is probably time
> > to fire-up the discussion again.
> 
> So I feel we should just merge this stuff already; [...]

Fully agreed - this has been going on for a long time and the patch-set 
has settled down nicely.

> [...] the only 'issue' I have is the cgroup abi muck. We clearly need a 
> bit more discussion on what/how we want things there but there are no 
> easy answers :/ So I'd say lets try this and see where we'll find 
> ourselves.

I'd suggest we leave out the cgroup ABI muck from the first round of 
upstream merge - do it in a second round, that will give it more 
attention.

Thanks,

	Ingo