On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:09:23AM +, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > tree, tree, what's in a word.
>
> Something you may plant on a patch of grass? "Merging" becomes a
> strange concept in that context though. :-)
I do know some farmers who splice tree
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:09:59PM +, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Did you merge those patches in your tree?
>
> tree, tree, what's in a word.
Something you may plant on a patch of grass? "Merging" becomes a
strange concept in tha
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:09:59PM +, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Did you merge those patches in your tree?
tree, tree, what's in a word. Its in my patch stack yes. I should get
some of that into tip I suppose, been side-tracked a bit this week.
Sorry for the delay.
> If so, is it
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:03:31AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > This is not a valid patch for PATCH(1). Please try again.
> >
> > Don't you use git? ;-)
>
> Nah, git and me don't get along well.
>
> > Here's a plain patch:
>
> Thanks!
Hi Pete
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:41:16AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Perhaps you could use a newer version of patch
>
> GNU patch version 2.7 released
Yeah, I know about that, I'll wait until its common in all distros,
updating all machines I use by hand is just painful.
___
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 17:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:03:31AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > This is not a valid patch for PATCH(1). Please try again.
> >
> > Don't you use git? ;-)
>
> Nah, git and me don't get along well.
Perhaps you could use a newer versio
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:03:31AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > This is not a valid patch for PATCH(1). Please try again.
>
> Don't you use git? ;-)
Nah, git and me don't get along well.
> Here's a plain patch:
Thanks!
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing lis
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:45:13PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
> > closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
> > sched directory will allow for a
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:45:13PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
> closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
> sched directory will allow for a smoother integration, and eliminate a
> subdirector
Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
sched directory will allow for a smoother integration, and eliminate a
subdirectory which contained only one source file.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
10 matches
Mail list logo
