On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 09:47:22AM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:05:31PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > Ingo, Greg,
> > > > > 
> > > > > What would be the easiest way to carry this forward? sched-devel and
> > > > > greg's tree would intersect at this point and leave poor akpm with the
> > > > > resulting mess. Should I just make an incremental patch akpm can carry
> > > > > and push? Or can we base one tree off the other?
> > > > 
> > > > If it's just a single patch for this, I'd be glad to take it.  But by 
> > > > looking at the [11/12] above, I doubt this is so...
> > > > 
> > > > If it's not that rough (12 patches is not a big deal), I'd be glad to 
> > > > take these through my tree, after you fix up Kay's requests above :)
> > > 
> > > hm, i'd really like to see this tested and go through sched.git. It's 
> > > only the few sysfs bits which interfere, right?
> > 
> > Yes, that should be it.
> > 
> > So why not put the majority of this through sched.git, then when my
> > sysfs changes go in at the beginning of the .25 merge cycle, you can
> > then add the sysfs changes through your tree or anywhere else.
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering where these changes are right now. I don't see the sysfs
> interface for rt-group-sched in mainline right now.

All of the sysfs changes I had are in Linus's tree, so you don't need me
anymore :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/