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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:11 EST