lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid lock semantics
On 12/15/2010 08:29 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 12/15/2010 02:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It's probably easiest if you just add them with my Acked-by: then.
>> Alternatively, I could pick them up so they go into -tip and the tip
>> test machinery.
>
> All patches accepted into percpu till now are in the following branch.
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-next
>
> The tree is based on v2.6.37-rc5 and v2.6.37-rc5..for-next would give
> 21 patches. I think most of these don't fit x86 tree but there are
> several which would fit there much better. d80aadf9 (x86: Replace
> uses of current_cpu_data with this_cpu ops) and e5195e91 (x86: Use
> this_cpu_inc_return for nmi counter).
>
> As it would be beneficial to push these through -tip testing anyway,
> how about the following?
>
> * If you review and ack the x86 related bits in the series, I'll
> regenerated and add the ACKs.
>
> * It would be better if the two commits mentioned above get routed
> through x86 tree rather than percpu tree, so I'll drop the above two
> from percpu tree and you can pull percpu into x86 and then apply
> those in x86 tree.
>

I think we can do that... let me look through the tree first officially
committing. Alternatively, I can pull the patches from your tree and
individually review them and add them to a tip branch, if you prefer.

-hpa

--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-15 17:39    [W:0.268 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site