On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 09:47:22AM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:05:31PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > Ingo, Greg, > > > > > > > > > > What would be the easiest way to carry this forward? sched-devel and > > > > > greg's tree would intersect at this point and leave poor akpm with the > > > > > resulting mess. Should I just make an incremental patch akpm can carry > > > > > and push? Or can we base one tree off the other? > > > > > > > > If it's just a single patch for this, I'd be glad to take it. But by > > > > looking at the [11/12] above, I doubt this is so... > > > > > > > > If it's not that rough (12 patches is not a big deal), I'd be glad to > > > > take these through my tree, after you fix up Kay's requests above :) > > > > > > hm, i'd really like to see this tested and go through sched.git. It's > > > only the few sysfs bits which interfere, right? > > > > Yes, that should be it. > > > > So why not put the majority of this through sched.git, then when my > > sysfs changes go in at the beginning of the .25 merge cycle, you can > > then add the sysfs changes through your tree or anywhere else. > > > > Hi, > > I was wondering where these changes are right now. I don't see the sysfs > interface for rt-group-sched in mainline right now.
All of the sysfs changes I had are in Linus's tree, so you don't need me anymore :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
