* Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:

quoted text
> 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 current patch applies to the base patch of Subject:
> 
>   [PATCH] cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag
> 
> You probably didn't pick up that base patch because Nick and I are 
> still haggling over it.  Well ... we've agreed, but I can't get the 
> scheduler to work as I thought Nick wanted, and I'm still waiting to 
> hear from Nick again.

please resend the base patch to Andrew (or better yet, a combo patch 
that Andrew can apply and which just does it all).

We've agreed on the external API and that is what matters for now. The 
internal interfacing between the scheduler and cpusets can/could be 
improved later on - and your original patch is reasonable to begin with. 
So lets just move on and do this.

	Ingo
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/