Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:51:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:51:01 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:8190 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:51:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4-ac: sparc64 support for O(1) scheduler From: Robert Love To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "David S. Miller" , alan@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7 Date: 16 Jun 2002 16:45:45 -0700 Message-Id: <1024271149.3090.13.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1047 Lines: 23 On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 08:19, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Linus applied them already, they will be in 2.5.22. They fix real bugs and > i've seen no problems on my testboxes. Those bits are a must for SMP x86 > and Sparc64 as well, there is absolutely no reason to selectively delay > their backmerge. Besides the last task_rq_lock() optimization which got > undone in 2.5 already, all the recent scheduler bits i posted are needed. I know they are fine (I looked over them) and I saw Linus took them, but 2.5.22 is not yet out and I did not see any reason to rush to new bits to Alan for 2.4 when we could wait a bit and make sure 2.5 proves them fine... My approach thus far with 2.5 -> 2.4 O(1) backports has been one of caution and it has worked fine thus far. I figure, what is the rush? 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/