From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW definition
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:53:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120123095338.GB11983@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120123094759.GU1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:47:59AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:15:31AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:42 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > This is version 3 of the set of patches removing
> > > > __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM. The series was rebased on top of
> > > > 3.3-rc1 and fixed the conflicts with the kernel/sched/ changes and the
> > > > ARM LPAE patches. There are no functional changes from v2. I plan to
> > > > push this to -next and get it ready for 3.4-rc1.
> > > >
> > > > Question for Peter/Ingo - how do we merge the first patch that
> > > > introduces finish_arch_post_lock_switch? Do you pick it up or I can
> > > > merge it via rmk (with your ack)?
> > >
> > > I'm fine either way, I'll probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I
> > > can stack some other patches on top.
> >
> > In which case I would need Russell's acked-by.
>
> That depends on knowing what CPU architectures this has been tested on,
> and whether anyone external has tested it. It's definitely a change
> which needs some tested-by tags on it.
I agree. On my side, I tested it on:
Versatile Express + Cortex-A9 (SMP configuration, ASIDs)
Versatile PB926 (UP configuration, no ASIDs)
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW definition
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:53:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120123095338.GB11983@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120123094759.GU1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:47:59AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:15:31AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:42 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > This is version 3 of the set of patches removing
> > > > __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM. The series was rebased on top of
> > > > 3.3-rc1 and fixed the conflicts with the kernel/sched/ changes and the
> > > > ARM LPAE patches. There are no functional changes from v2. I plan to
> > > > push this to -next and get it ready for 3.4-rc1.
> > > >
> > > > Question for Peter/Ingo - how do we merge the first patch that
> > > > introduces finish_arch_post_lock_switch? Do you pick it up or I can
> > > > merge it via rmk (with your ack)?
> > >
> > > I'm fine either way, I'll probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I
> > > can stack some other patches on top.
> >
> > In which case I would need Russell's acked-by.
>
> That depends on knowing what CPU architectures this has been tested on,
> and whether anyone external has tested it. It's definitely a change
> which needs some tested-by tags on it.
I agree. On my side, I tested it on:
Versatile Express + Cortex-A9 (SMP configuration, ASIDs)
Versatile PB926 (UP configuration, no ASIDs)
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-23 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-20 17:42 [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW definition Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler hook Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-02-27 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-02-27 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] ARM: Use TTBR1 instead of reserved context ID Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] ARM: Allow ASID 0 to be allocated to tasks Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] ARM: Remove __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ASID-capable CPUs Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] ARM: Remove current_mm per-cpu variable Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] ARM: Remove __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on pre-ARMv6 CPUs Catalin Marinas
2012-01-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-23 9:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW definition Peter Zijlstra
2012-01-23 9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-01-23 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-23 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-23 9:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-23 9:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-23 9:53 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2012-01-23 9:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-24 15:14 ` Will Deacon
2012-01-24 15:14 ` Will Deacon
2012-01-25 10:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-01-25 10:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-16 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-02-16 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120123095338.GB11983@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.