Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree

Erich Focht (efocht@ess.nec.de)
Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:05:30 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.46: epoll ep_insert doesn't wake waiters if events"
Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Why are exe, cwd, and root priviledged bits of information?"
In reply to: Michael Hohnbaum: "Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree"
Next in thread: Michael Hohnbaum: "Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree"

On Wednesday 06 November 2002 19:10, Michael Hohnbaum wrote:
> > Is it ok for you to have it this way or would you prefer having the
> > core and the initial load balancer separate?
>
> This is fine with me. Can't the core changes and and load
> balancer be maintained as separate changesets within the bk
> tree?

OK, I'll do that. Any idea how I can apply a changeset which has
another name attached to it than mine?

Regards,
Erich

-
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/

Next message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.46: epoll ep_insert doesn't wake waiters if events"
Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Why are exe, cwd, and root priviledged bits of information?"
In reply to: Michael Hohnbaum: "Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree"
Next in thread: Michael Hohnbaum: "Re: NUMA scheduler BK tree"