Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> > No problem, I've been meaning to redo this whole series but somehow 
> > stuff got in the way and I never got around to it :-/
> 
> I'm actually totally surprised that it got in. Ingo applied Peter's 
> initial patch to his sched-devel tree but then ignored follow up 
> patches with fixes and stuff from me (I'm assuming that was because we 
> started discussion alternative options).

yes, there's been a lot of back and forth.

Paul/Peter/Max, what's the current agreed-upon approach to merge these 
physical resource isolation features into cpusets intelligently while 
still keeping the whole thing as usable and practical to down-to-earth 
sysadmins as possible? That is the issue that is blocking this whole 
topic from progressing.

> Anyway, my vote goes for reverting these series.

none of this is upstream yet (nor is any of this even near to being 
ready for upstream), so there's nothing to revert.

	Ingo