Re: [patch] add optimized generic percpu accessors

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> And this happens to be the third time I wrote the above addresses in 
>> this thread.  :-)
> 
> You know the drill: you have to explicitly ask for stuff to be pulled :-)

Heh... Jeff usually just regenerates patches from the git tree or just
takes the mails, so not too familiar with pull requests.  :-)

> ( Otherwise if i just pull it and you rebased it or were unhappy about it 
>   in some fashion we all add stress that could have been avoided. )
> 
> So i've picked up these commits from you:
> 
>  d060676: x86_64: misc clean up after the percpu update
>  6d459d9: x86_64: convert pda ops to wrappers around x86 percpu accessors
>  d7051ef: x86_64: make pda a percpu variable
>  4fe7fdf: x86_64: merge 64 and 32 SMP percpu handling
>  44f5fbd: x86_64: fold pda into percpu area on SMP
>  cc1d354: x86_64: use static _cpu_pda array
>  c701268: x86_64: load pointer to pda into %gs while brining up a CPU
>  7e36da9: x86_64: make percpu symbols zerobased on SMP
>  3fc860d: x86_32: make vmlinux_32.lds.S use PERCPU() macro
>  bc497c7: x86_64: Cleanup early setup_percpu references
>  769d780: x86: make early_per_cpu() a lvalue and use it
>  66cbc8e: x86_64: fix pda_to_op()
> 
> into tip/x86/percpu.
> 
> I did the following small reorganizations:
> 
>  - i rebased them on top of tip/cpus4096, tip/x86/cleanups and 
>    tip/x86/urgent - that is a stable base.
> 
>  - i resolved the conflicts that arose due to recent cpumask and upstream 
>    changes.
> 
>  - i standardized the commit logs to the usual x86 style and added 
>    Original-From: Mike Travis tags to those patches that were derived from 
>    Mike's patches.
> 
> If they pass testing they'll be stable commits from that point on, and you 
> can base your git trees on that topic branch.
> 
> Could you please have a look at the end result? Here are the Git 
> coordinates for it:
> 
>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git x86/percpu

Yeap, looks fine to me.

> If we are happy with it then these commits can be stable commits from now 
> on, and you can base your future changes on this Git tree, and i can pull 
> updates from you without having to rebase them.
> 
> Does that workflow sound OK to you?

Yes, perfectly okay.

Thanks.  :-)

-- 
tejun