From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to sched_notifier and always enable it Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20091127070254.GA1547@elte.hu> References: <1259239259.4273.82.camel@twins> <4B0F356B.3040206@kernel.org> <20091127045209.GA13914@elte.hu> <4B0F65DD.1090707@kernel.org> <20091127054621.GA25672@elte.hu> <4B0F6B32.4090401@kernel.org> <20091127061319.GA8620@elte.hu> <4B0F6EA9.6070105@kernel.org> <20091127062147.GB22149@elte.hu> <4B0F73CA.7090804@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51055 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650AbZK0HDM (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:03:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B0F73CA.7090804@kernel.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" * Tejun Heo wrote: > > Please send all sched.c modifications via the scheduler tree. Going > > via other trees is fine when there's agreement by the maintainers - > > but this is one of the rare cases where that's not the case. > > Yeah, sure. So, two patchsets. One for sched/core doing pure > reorganization without any functional changes. The other for > sched/notifier (or whatever name you would prefer) which is purely for > development and testing and will not be pushed to Linus unless it > receives notifier framework cleanup. wq#for-next will pull from > sched/notifier and be exported to linux-next but it will never be > submitted to Linus until sched/notifier is cleaned up. Am I > understanding it correctly? Yeah, that would be fine. Ingo