On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:55:28 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:37:42 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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?
> 
> So, your understanding is that the "old sched/numa code" won't (and
> shouldn't) be merged into Linus' tree (for v3.7, or ever)?
> 
> In that case, what I can do is give you a tree that is the same as
> akpm-base but with one of the merges in the tip tree reverted (and, in
> fact, I could push that into akpm-base to make things easier for you).
> I guess that would be the merge of the numa/core branch which would
> result in the following commits being reverted:

Ok, ignore all this :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au