> i'd suggest we go with what we have now
Ok - I'll try sending this against 2.6.23-rc8-mm2
in a couple of hours, if it goes well.
> We cannot merge it via sched.git because it has some containers
> (or other?) dependencies, right?
This sched_load_balance flag patch collides with the cgroup
(ak
* Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My plan had been to send Andrew something on Wednesday
> next week (five days from now), either what we have now,
> or with the improved cpuset-to-sched API, if Nick and I
> can work through that (well, if Nick can figure out what
> I broke, while I'm o
Ingo wrote:
> please resend the base patch to Andrew (or better yet, a combo patch
> that Andrew can apply and which just does it all).
I'm reluctant to right now, because I will be off the air
for three days, starting in one more day, and don't like
firing off stuff just before I vanish.
Though
* Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup - so far as I can tell, you didn't pick up the base patch that
> this current patch fixes. So, no, I wouldn't expect this patch to
> make any sense.
>
> As I stated in this current patch in the diffstat section after the
> '---' marker, this cu
Andrew wrote:
> I'm getting 100% rejects from this - probably whatever patch it is
> patching got lost or unrecognisably mangled.
Yup - so far as I can tell, you didn't pick up the base patch that
this current patch fixes. So, no, I wouldn't expect this patch to
make any sense.
As I stated in th
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:44:01 -0700
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks to Randy Dunlap for the review that caught
> some of the following.
>
> Some bug fixes and coding style fixes:
> 1) only one statement per line, please.
> 2) don't nee
6 matches
Mail list logo
