Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat 
> > > > suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be 
> > > > much to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less 
> > > > trivial callbacks there.
> > > The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem 
> > > allocator uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c.
> > Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.
>
> This tree doesnt conflict (not even with kmecheck) - and the older 
> bits you sent against the scheduler and against x86 doesnt apply 
> anymore - but they do look scary.

Btw, yeah, it doesn't conflict because I dropped the problematic patches 
and did the bootmem fallback instead.

But now you know why I tried to push all this to -tip. Your tree is 
moving so fast that it's difficult to generate patches that apply to 
both, -tip and mainline, in this particular area :-).

			Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/