From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:34331 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751114AbaIUN0P (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:26:15 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:26:15 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 06:25:56 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Chris Mason Cc: Omar Sandoval , Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Move BTRFS RCU string to common library Message-ID: <20140921132556.GJ4723@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140919154546.GZ4723@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <541C5029.1070500@fb.com> <20140919160555.GD4723@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <541C5861.4040403@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <541C5861.4040403@fb.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:22:57PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On 09/19/2014 12:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:47:53AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 09/19/2014 11:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:01:28AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > >>>> This patch series moves the generic RCU string library used internally by BTRFS > >>>> to be accessible by anyone. It provides printk_in_rcu and > >>>> printk_ratelimited_in_rcu to print these strings. In order to avoid a weird > >>>> inconsistency between the two, the first patch fixes printk_ratelimited so it > >>>> passes on the return value from printk. > >>>> > >>>> The second patch actually moves the RCU string library. Version 2 passes on the > >>>> return values from printk{,_ratelimited} and fixes some style issues. > >>>> > >>>> Omar Sandoval (2): > >>> > >>> For the series: > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney > >> > >> Fine by me too, Paul, do you want to merge it in? > > > > I would be happy to. > > > > Are you thinking in terms of 3.18 or 3.19? These look OK either way, but > > thought I should check. > > Either way is fine with me. Actually this will have minor conflicts > with my current branch headed for-next, so I can resolve and send as a > stand alone pull. There are no conflicts with RCU, just adding a file, so I am just as happy to have you send this via your tree. Thanx, Paul