On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:49:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 04:02:09PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > That sounds "nice", but it seems to be a feature, and doesn't meet the > > main requirements of the stable tree. > > I thought you had said that some features had gone into the stable > kernel tree because distro's were shipping them? Or am I > misremembering what was discussed at the kernel summit?
The "features" was performance speedups to the scheduler and mm layer. They were not new features being added. > > However, odds are that distros based on the stable trees would love a > > solid patchset that adds this option. So post the patches and I bet the > > distros will pick it up from there, I know I'll go add them to the LTSI > > kernel, and that's used by others as well. > > I'm happy to set up a patchset which is tested against 3.2 and 3.4, > and whatever kernels distro's are using (within reason). 3.2 and 3.4 sound like a good place to start. > If distros start picking them up, we can see what happens from there. That sounds reasonable to me. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
