On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 09:09:45PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > > All now applied to the 3.14-stable queue, thanks.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I realized this was not applied to 3.18-stable yet.
> >
> > Is there any reason?
>
> I don't maintain the 3.18-stable tree, so there's nothing I can do
> there
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:31:46PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:15:55AM +, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > Upstream commits to be applied
> > > ==
> > >
> > > e3fca9e: sched
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:15:55AM +, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > Upstream commits to be applied
> > ==
> >
> > e3fca9e: sched: Replace post_schedule with a balance callback list
> > 4c9a4bc: sched: Allow
On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 17:52 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Upstream commits to be applied
> ==
>
> e3fca9e: sched: Replace post_schedule with a balance callback list
> 4c9a4bc: sched: Allow balance callbacks for check_class_changed()
> 8046d68: sched,rt: Remove return v
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Upstream commits to be applied
> ==
>
> e3fca9e: sched: Replace post_schedule with a balance callback list
> 4c9a4bc: sched: Allow balance callbacks for check_class_changed()
> 8046d68: sched,rt: Remov
On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 04:02 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
@stable: Kernels that predate SCHED_DEADLINE can use this simple (and tested)
check in lieu of backport of the full 18 patch mainline treatment.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |9 +
1 file changed,
On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 04:02 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
> @stable: Kernels that predate SCHED_DEADLINE can use this simple (and tested)
> check in lieu of backport of the full 18 patch mainline treatment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c |9 +
> 1
On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 11:00 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:41:39PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:11:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Pe
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:00:08AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:41:39PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:11:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:41:39PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:11:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:11:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So the reason I didn't
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> > > trivial, however they'v
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I
> > suppose backportin
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I
> suppose backporting them isn't a problem.
Hello,
What do you think about the way to solv
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Upstream commits to be applied
> ==
>
> e3fca9e: sched: Replace post_schedule with a balance callback list
> 4c9a4bc: sched: Allow balance callbacks for check_class_changed()
> 8046d68: sched,rt: Remov
Upstream commits to be applied
==
e3fca9e: sched: Replace post_schedule with a balance callback list
4c9a4bc: sched: Allow balance callbacks for check_class_changed()
8046d68: sched,rt: Remove return value from pull_rt_task()
fd7a4be: sched, rt: Convert switched_{from,
18 matches
Mail list logo
