On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:19:16AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 11:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:13:10AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> >>Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you,
> >>Juri
> >>and Henrik) by sending incremental
On 04/09/2015 11:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:13:10AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you, Juri
and Henrik) by sending incremental patches based on these ones (since I see you
queued
these patches), or sh
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:13:10AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you,
> Juri
> and Henrik) by sending incremental patches based on these ones (since I see
> you queued
> these patches), or should I resend everything after address
Hi Peter,
On 04/08/2015 04:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
Hi all,
here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts:
1) I split the patches trying to isolate
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
> I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts:
> 1) I split the patches trying to isolate related changes. So,
>- the first patch fixes
5 matches
Mail list logo
