From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: upcoming percpu changes Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20100205070903.GA9320@elte.hu> References: <20100205161648.086375b9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4B6BB13C.2090108@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B6BB13C.2090108@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linus , Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Rusty Russell , Christoph Lameter , "H. Peter Anvin" , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org * Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 02/05/2010 02:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > The percpu tree currently in linux-next > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git#for-next) > > contains a patch to remove the "per_cpu_" prefix from percpu variables > > followed by a set of patches to annotate all the percpu variables (and > > accessing variables) with a __percpu tag to put them into a separate > > sparse name space. These latter patches are causing some merge conflicts > > with a couple of trees (and will most likely cause more before the merge > > window). A solution to this is for you to accept the patch below into > > your tree now and then the annotating patches can be sent to the > > respective maintainers directly. > > > > Of course, this assumes that you will accept the percpu changes during > > the next merge window (and they are not completely without controversy) > > and the proponents actually submit them :-). > > > > What do you think? > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell > > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:09:11 +1100 > > Subject: [PATCH] percpu: add __percpu for sparse > > > > This is to make the annotation of percpu variables during the next merge > > window less painfull. > > > > Extracted from a patch by Rusty Russell. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > > I agree that this would be the cleanest way to integrate things. > Thanks for doing this. If this gets in, I'll send individual patches > to respective maintainers. > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo > > For reference, the thread which contains the annoation patches is > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/25/107 > > Thanks. Has the review feedback from Frederic and hpa been addressed? (and have they acked the solution?) That was the only controversial bit i remember. Thanks, Ingo