On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:00:58 -0700 Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
> > or fixed properly etc.
It's close enough for an rc1.
> True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
>
Nick wrote:
> If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
> or fixed properly etc.
True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
taking longer will help much; we should strive to resolve this
now, if we can.
--
I won't rest till
Nick wrote:
If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
or fixed properly etc.
True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
taking longer will help much; we should strive to resolve this
now, if we can.
--
I won't rest till
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:00:58 -0700 Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick wrote:
If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
or fixed properly etc.
It's close enough for an rc1.
True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
taking longer
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
>
> Which patch do you refer to:
> 1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
> cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
> 2) my
> In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
Which patch do you refer to:
1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
2) my patch of a few days ago to add a 'sched_load_balance' flag:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:34, Paul Jackson wrote:
> In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
> > cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
> >
> > Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
>
> Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
> a wibble
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:34, Paul Jackson wrote:
In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
a wibble is, I wonder
In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
Which patch do you refer to:
1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
2) my patch of a few days ago to add a 'sched_load_balance' flag:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
Which patch do you refer to:
1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
2) my patch of a
In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
> cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
>
> Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
a wibble is, I wonder which one Andrew had in mind:
In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
a wibble is, I wonder which one Andrew had in mind:
12 matches
Mail list logo
