Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
>> Wii, isn't this fun...!  This is a resubmission of yesterday's patches 
>> based on the x86.git/latest tree.  Yes, it _is_ a maze of twisty litle 
>> passages. ;-)
> 
> just to make patch dependencies clear: most of the patches here can be 
> applied to their base trees as-is, without depending on any other patch, 
> correct?
> 
> the only undeclared dependency i found was the cpumask_scnprintf_len() 
> patch - please prominently list dependencies in the changelog like this:
> 
>  [ this patch depends on "cpumask: Add cpumask_scnprintf_len function" ]
> 
> 	Ingo


Ahh, ok.  I was under the assumption that an entire patchset would be
applied en-mass and only divided up by bi-sect debugging...?

The second patchset (cpumask) is highly incremental and I did it like
this to show memory gains (or losses).  I tossed a few patches that
didn't have any overall goodness (and have a few more to help with
the memory footprint or performance in the queue.)

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/