On 05/18/2015 09:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:39:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> ping > > Does this reflect the comments from the previous review cycle? >
This is the V2 version of the V1 pathset. But it is just the updated version of the patch1&2 of the V1 patchset. It doesn't contains the fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store(), so I can say it reflects all the comments except the name of the function "get_node_unbound_pwq()" (patch was sent earlier than your replied). (I wish I can get more comments before the next version). The fix-up patch for wq_[nice|cpumask|numa]_store() is so important, should I directly send a patchset for it (including the patch1&2 of this V2 patchset)? (and delay or even drop the "get_alloc_node_unbound_pwq()"). Thanks, Lai. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
