Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:35:35 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |