Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:15:39 +0100 | Subject | Re: Request for tree inclusion | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> |
| |
2012/12/3 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>: > 2012/12/2 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>: >> Well, these are a bit late (I expected Linus to release v3.7 today), but >> since Ingo has not piped in over the weekend, I have added them from today >> after the tip tree merge. > > Yeah sorry to submit that so late. Those branches are in pending pull > requests to the -tip tree and I thought about relying on the > propagation of -tip into -next as usual. But Ingo has been very busy > with numa related work during this cycle. So until these branches get > merged in -tip, I'm short-circuiting a bit the -next step before it > becomes too late for the next merge window. > >> >> I have called them fw-cputime, fs-sched and fw-nohz respectively and >> listed you as the only contact in case of problems. > > Ok. > >> If these are to be >> long term trees included in linux-next, I would prefer that you use >> better branch names - otherwise, if they are just short term, please tell >> me to remove them when they are finished with. > > They are definitely short term. I'll tell you once these can be dropped. > > Thanks a lot!
Hi Stephen!
fw-cputime and fs-sched have been merged so you can now remove these branches from next.
But fw-nohz remains. In the meantime I have created a branch named nohz/next:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git nohz/next
This branch currently refers to fw-nohz HEAD (aka nohz/printk-v8) and this is also the place where I'll gather -next materials in the future instead of the multiple branches you're currently pulling. So could you please remove fw-nohz (nohz/printk-v8) as well from -next but include nohz/next instead?
Thanks!
| |