From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ehca: use kthread_create_on_node Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1311923731.7845.25.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1328181135.2279.9.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: Eric Dumazet , Sean Hefty , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Roland Dreier wrote= : > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Eric Dumazet = wrote: >> Any news on this patch ? > Sorry, just dropped it in the shuffle. =A0I'll get it into 3.4, thank= s. Roland, I noted that you typically use the for-next branch of the infiniband tree for fixes during the 1 < kernN-rc < (say) 6 time and for features during (kernN-rc > 6) till kern(N+1)-rc1 This means that the window of time when features are actually accepted into your tree is kind of very limited. Would it be possible to maintain two branches: for-next and (say) rc-fixes, such that practically patches are reviewed/accepted to for-next at almost all times? BTW I see that networking and scsi maintainers use two trees (net/net-next) and (scsi-misc/scsi-rc-fixes), maybe it would be eaiser for you go this way? Or.