Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:18:28 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: linux-next-20110923: warning kernel/rcutree.c:1833 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:19:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:12:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 02:30:44PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > [ . . . ] > > > > Sure I can take your patches (I'm going to merge the delta into the first). > > > But if you want a rebase against -rc8, it's going to be easier if you > > > do that rebase on the branch you want me to work on. Then I work on top > > > of it. > > > > > > For example we can take your rcu/dynticks, rewind to > > > "rcu: Make synchronize_sched_expedited() better at work sharing" > > > 771c326f20029a9f30b9a58237c9a5d5ddc1763d, rebase on top of -rc8 > > > and I rebase my patches (yours included) on top of it and I repost. > > > > > > Right? > > > > Yep! Your earlier three patches look to need some extended-quiescent-state > > rework as well: > > > > b5566f3d: Detect illegal rcu dereference in extended quiescent state > > ee05e5a4: Inform the user about dynticks-idle mode on PROVE_RCU warning > > fa5d22cf: Warn when rcu_read_lock() is used in extended quiescent state > > > > So I will leave these out and let you rebase them. > > And for whatever it is worth, my following patches depend on yours as > well, so will not include them in the rebase: > > 61cf7640: Remove one layer of abstraction from PROVE_RCU checking > 9a4d1ce3: Warn when srcu_read_lock() is used in an extended quiescent state
And the new stack passes moderate rcutorture testing, and is available at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/linux on branch rcu/next.
Thanx, Paul
| |