Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:39:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:39:15 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:1701 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:39:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:40:41 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Erich Focht , Michael Hohnbaum cc: Robert Love , Anton Blanchard , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel Subject: Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree Message-ID: <347990000.1037648441@flay> In-Reply-To: <200211061734.42713.efocht@ess.nec.de> References: <200211061734.42713.efocht@ess.nec.de> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 954 Lines: 27 > in order to make it easier to keep up with the main Linux tree I've > set up a bitkeeper repository with our NUMA scheduler at > bk://numa-ef.bkbits.net/numa-sched > (Web view: http://numa-ef.bkbits.net/) > This used to contain my node affine NUMA scheduler, I'll add extra > trees when the additional patches for that are tested on top of our > NUMA scheduler. > > Is it ok for you to have it this way or would you prefer having the > core and the initial load balancer separate? > > The tree is currently in sync with bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 and > I'll try to keep so. BTW, can you keep producing normal patches too, when you do an update? I don't use bitkeeper ... Thanks, Martin. - 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/