>>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to do
>>> with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to also
>>> have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but further
>>> testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere. So please
>>> ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled in, but I don't
>>> think you have). Ill try to look into this issue as well.
>>
>> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/*
>> yet, correct?
>>
> Here is the original thread:
>
>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416
>
> I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet.
>
> Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as
> well. (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct"
> but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out
> first.
