On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:34AM -0700, Max Krasnyansky wrote:Although it seemed like something of a hack, we experimented with this previously and found that it didn't work reliably. I'm sure things have gotten better, but will need to revisit. Until a proven reliable method for doing this is firmly in place (as firmly as anything is, anyway), I don't think we should be removing the alternative. Nice idea. What sort of conflict are we talking about? I assume once you've begun setting up cpusets that include those cpus that you're intention is to change the original behavior. --
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Herbert Xu | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
