Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:42:07 -0800 | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | | Subject | Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid lock semantics |
| |
On 12/16/2010 08:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. >
Just finished reviewing the patches in percpu#for-next.
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Look good. Let me know when you have a baseline I can pull into a tip branch so we can build the rest of the patches on top.
-hpa
|  |