Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:14:42 +0100 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid lock semantics |
| |
Hey, again.
On 12/15/2010 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'd prefer percpu things going through percpu tree, if for nothing > else for git history's sake, but I don't think it really matters. The > series is spread all over the place anyway. As long as each > maintainer is properly alerted about the changes, it should be okay. > Please let me know whether you agree with the changes currently queued > in percpu#for-next. I'll update the tree with your Acked-by's and > freeze it.
Are you okay with the patches currently in percpu#for-next? If so, I'll regenerate patches with your acked-by and pop the two previously mentioned commits and proceed with the rest of the series.
Thank you.
-- tejun
| |