Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:52:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:52:16 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:54535 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:52:15 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 From: Robert Love To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , marcelo@connectiva.com.br.munich.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20021202201101.A26164@sgi.com> References: <20021202192652.A25938@sgi.com> <1919608311.1038822649@[10.10.2.3]> <20021202201101.A26164@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1038855585.895.16.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 02 Dec 2002 13:59:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 834 Lines: 22 On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 20:11, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Marcelo, what are the chances of getting this merged into mainline > > in the 2.4.20 timeframe? > > Ingo vetoed it. I did too. I know the distributors (including the one I work for) want it, but its a big change and very much a 2.5 thing. I would not be against tuning the 2.4 scheduler, though. But the changes to architecture-dependent code mean it may not even work on one or two architectures (i.e. cris, maybe?) and so I am against the whole O(1) scheduler and all of that supporting code for 2.4 proper. Robert Love - 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/