From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760948AbZFJUrV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:47:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753923AbZFJUrI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:47:08 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com ([209.85.220.213]:49430 "EHLO mail-fx0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752490AbZFJUrH (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:47:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=LD9AFX28DG4xUwuFaYsMR1ef2NIcdO9Mj3+P3AM+WVMQxJGT+kY+OBMGa5Dh7w0XiR pdeWxDjzWs9A/qFIqF4UOKkYR6UEIn5tNfepnQ7AXvqX1SzSh2QZM/XJQyZC/BEXssiY SCJlqmtZK7ey9KO85SPmckhnTFiJChrzFWjeU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> References: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:47:07 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8ab0ec8924c61039 Message-ID: <84144f020906101347y3e250f4bme2d1c60dd5993ffc@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31 From: Pekka Enberg To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mpm@selenic.com, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Pekka Enberg wrote: > >> Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote: >> >>>> I already have patches for that but they are against the -tip >>>> tree so I think we ought to just merge this series to mainline >>>> and fix everything up in subsystem trees for 2.6.31 proper. >>> >>> Hmm. Are there any reasons why the scheduler fixups can't go in >>> this series? Do they depend on other things in -tip? >> >> The patches are rebased to -tip, yeah. I can do a version against >> your tree if you want but that will mean merge conflicts for Ingo. >> Hmm? > > I'm a tiny bit nervous about the tested-ness of the patches. Such > stuff rarely works at first try. But it's obviously nice changes. Yeah, I was thinking of sitting on them until 2.6.32 and put them into linux-next after the merge window closes. But Linus seems to want them and with the fallback in place, we can probably fix any fall out quite easily. > What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat suggests > it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much to conflict, > except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial callbacks there. The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem allocator uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c. Pekka