Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:18:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:18:28 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:11251 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:18:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4-ac: sparc64 support for O(1) scheduler From: Robert Love To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020616.222813.04502396.davem@redhat.com> References: <1024271149.3090.13.camel@sinai> <20020616.222813.04502396.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7 Date: 17 Jun 2002 14:18:22 -0700 Message-Id: <1024348703.3090.136.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1052 Lines: 25 On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 22:28, David S. Miller wrote: > Your changes were pretty, that's part of the problem. Fixing things > correctly is 10 times more preferable to a 1 time hack "just for now". *shrug* I think you are missing my point but that is OK - we really do not need to fight over it. The switch_mm patch touched _core_ bits - code that affects i386 which works fine now in 2.4-ac. As 2.4-ac is stable and i386 is working fine, I want to move changes into it slowly and with testing. If you object to merging the "broken" sparc64 patch now but concede we can wait for Ingo's patch, then I agree. In fact, in light of Ingo's patch Alan should not merge what I sent. But my opinion would be to hold off until the new bits saw some testing in 2.5 ... however trivial they may be. 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/