Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:49:09 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair |
| |
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > this change - or can I pick this up into the scheduler tree? > > Timely question! ;-) > > My current plan is to send you a pull request like the following later > today, Pacific Time (but rebased adding Steve Rostedt's Reviewed-by). > This patch is on one of the branches, currently v4.13-rc2..93d8d7a12090 > ("arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions") in my > -rcu tree. > > Ah, and v4.13-rc2..7391304c4959 ("membarrier: Expedited private command") > is mostly outside of RCU as well. > > Since I will be rebasing and remerging anyway, if you would prefer that I > split the spin_unlock_wait() and/or misc branches out, I am happy to do so. > If I don't hear otherwise, though, I will send all seven branches using > my usual approach. > > So, if you want something different than my usual approach, please just > let me know!
No, all branches together sounds good to me!
If you are rebasing anyway, here are some (very minor) commit title nits I noticed:
> swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average > rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear
Capitalization.
> membarrier: Expedited private command
Should start with a verb.
> doc: RCU documentation update
doc: Update RCU documentation
?
> doc: No longer allowed to use rcu_dereference on non-pointers
doc: Describe that it is no longer allowed to use rcu_dereference() on non-pointers
?
> torture: Add --kconfig argument to kvm.sh > rcutorture: Don't wait for kernel when all builds fail
Is there a difference between 'torture: ' and 'rcutorture: ' prefixes?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |