From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:39:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20121114073929.GA3130@gmail.com> References: <20121114163042.64f0c0495663331b9c2d60d6@canb.auug.org.au> <20121113213742.292f3ace.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20121114064726.GA2537@gmail.com> <20121113225635.a848fd6c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:44179 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756315Ab2KNHje (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:39:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121113225635.a848fd6c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus , Hugh Dickins * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell 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 iteratively. 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 ... Thanks, Ingo