From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762109Ab3ECA5y (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2013 20:57:54 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:4535 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761818Ab3ECA5x (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2013 20:57:53 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=GtrACzJC c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=5eKZcm_OZmQA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=jz4g3xt9QgwA:10 a=myHqRekJXIowLchbwCkA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1367542669.7373.10.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock From: Steven Rostedt To: Tejun Heo Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:57:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130503001206.GA19814@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20110622174659.496793734@linutronix.de> <20110622174919.135236139@linutronix.de> <20130430133722.GA477@home.goodmis.org> <20130430224710.GB9583@home.goodmis.org> <20130503001206.GA19814@mtj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:12 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 06:47:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:37:22AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > [ Blast from the past! ] > > > > > > When merging in 3.4.42 into the 3.4-rt branch I hit a conflict with the > > > try_to_wake_up_local() call. It seems that the 3.4-rt patch has this > > > patch applied. Although, this is not applied to any of the other -rt patches. > > > > > > > I take that back. It's in 3.0-rt, 3.2-rt and 3.4-rt, but it's not in 3.6-rt > > nor in 3.8-rt. > > So, it's all good? Or is there something I need to look into? It looks good to me. I don't know why it's not in 3.6-rt or 3.8-rt. Was there a reason that Thomas took it out? I don't know. Maybe it's not needed or he thought it went mainline? -- Steve