Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

2007-10-03 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:00:58 -0700 Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick wrote: > > If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled > > or fixed properly etc. It's close enough for an rc1. > True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt > takin

Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

2007-10-03 Thread Paul Jackson
Nick wrote: > If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled > or fixed properly etc. True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt taking longer will help much; we should strive to resolve this now, if we can. -- I won't rest till i

Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

2007-10-02 Thread Nick Piggin
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote: > > In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it? > > Which patch do you refer to: > 1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains: > cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch > 2) my patc

Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

2007-10-02 Thread Paul Jackson
> In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it? Which patch do you refer to: 1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains: cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch 2) my patch of a few days ago to add a 'sched_load_balance' flag: c

Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

2007-10-02 Thread Nick Piggin
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:34, Paul Jackson wrote: > In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote: > > cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch > > > > Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess. > > Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what > a wibble is,