From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753382Ab1EUO26 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 May 2011 10:28:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60598 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752315Ab1EUO24 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 May 2011 10:28:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 16:28:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch Message-ID: <20110521142844.GA29813@elte.hu> References: <20110521140613.GA13062@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110521140613.GA13062@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello, Ingo, > > This pull requests covers some RCU bug fixes and one patch rework. > > The first group breaks up the infamous now-reverted (but ultimately > vindicated) "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof" > commit into five commits. These five commits immediately follow the > revert, and the diff across all six of these commits is empty, so that > the effect of the five commits is to revert the revert. But ... the regression that was observed with that commit needs to be fixed first, or not? In what way was the barrier commit vindicated? Thanks, Ingo