From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1751944AbZHCGQc@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751944AbZHCGQc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2009 02:16:32 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751606AbZHCGQb
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2009 02:16:31 -0400
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59465 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751568AbZHCGQa (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2009 02:16:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:16:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Add 'percpu_read_stable()' interface for
	cacheable accesses
Message-ID: <20090803061608.GA21564@elte.hu>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907311218080.3161@localhost.localdomain> <20090731195705.GA12270@elte.hu> <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908011214330.3304@localhost.localdomain> <4A76421E.3040005@kernel.org> <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908021913130.3352@localhost.localdomain> <4A7670E0.4030605@kernel.org> <4A767203.5090802@zytor.com> <4A767325.20604@kernel.org> <20090803060408.GA20762@elte.hu> <4A767EE4.20702@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A767EE4.20702@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5
	-1.5 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>>> Ingo, these patches might as well go through x86 tree.  If you think
>>>>> that would be better, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>> Makes sense to me.  I'll pull them into x86/percpu.
>>> Cool, dropping from my tree then.
>>
>> We can delegate the contents of x86/percpu to you (the topic branch  
>> contains no patches over mainline right now) - i.e. we can pull those 
>> bits from you and they could also be in your tree to keep your testing 
>> & integration consistent.
>>
>
> I just pushed out these branches into tip:x86/percpu.

Thanks! (I'll test it and push it out into -tip:master.)

> [...]  We can zap those if there is a tree head you'd rather use.

It's fine this way i think.

Tejun: in the future you might want to offer up new x86-only bits 
based on tip:x86/percpu as git pulls.

	Ingo