lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> 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. [...]

Nah, that would be unreasonably long.

> [...] But Linus seems to want them and with the fallback in place,
> we can probably fix any fall out quite easily.

Yeah.

> > 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.

Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-10 22:53    [W:0.068 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site