Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch (was: Fixcpuset sched_relax_domain_level control file)

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:38:59 -0500 Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> pj wrote:
> > What's the easiest way to get from where we are now, to a world
> > without that patch?
> 
> Would it help, Andrew, if I proposed a patch that went into your latest
> mmtom stack, right after the three patches:
> 
>   origin.patch
>   linux-next.patch
>   Paul Menage's latest "Fix cpuset sched_relax_domain_level control file"
> 
> that reverted the cpuset "system" patch (this being a patch that added
> a per-cpuset file called "system", which could be used to do things
> such as help manage the assignment of IRQs to CPUs.)
> 
> I suspect that some of Ingo, Max Krasnyanskiy, or Peter Zijlstra will
> not be happy with my doing this, but I'm pretty sure that the "system"
> patch needs more work before we have agreement on the API.  I really
> don't want to add the API of that current patch "as is" to the kernel.
> 
> I've added several of the people who were part of the preceding threads
> on this discussion to the CC list.
> 
> I'm cooking up such a patch now -- I've gotten to the point that it
> applies and builds; now I am about to see how badly it breaks the
> remaining 426 patches in the mmtom stack.

Don't worry about it.  I sorted out things locally and I expect that
Stephen will be able to as well.  Hopefully Ingo will toss the whole patch
series so we can take another look at it all.


--
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/