Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:50:26 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |