From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754925Ab1FNIIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:08:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40091 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751189Ab1FNIIp (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:08:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:08:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Suresh Siddha Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "trenn@novell.com" , "prarit@redhat.com" , "tj@kernel.org" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Song, Youquan" , "stable@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [patch v4 1/2] stop_machine: enable __stop_machine() to be called from the cpu online path Message-ID: <20110614080824.GC29900@elte.hu> References: <20110613175832.331826123@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> <20110613175915.504721985@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> <20110613195613.GA11196@elte.hu> <1307998158.2682.33.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1307998158.2682.33.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.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 * Suresh Siddha wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:56 -0700, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Suresh Siddha wrote: > > > > > include/linux/stop_machine.h | 11 +++-- > > > kernel/stop_machine.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > Btw., this is *way* too risky for a -stable backport. > > > > Ingo, we can have a smaller patch (appended) for the -stable. How > do you want to go ahead? Take this small patch for both mainline > and -stable and the two code cleanup/consolidation patches for -tip > (to go into 3.1?). Thanks. this: > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- > include/linux/stop_machine.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > kernel/stop_machine.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) looks pretty risky as well, this is core kernel code that is relatively rarely used and if it breaks it causes various high impact regressions. Once Tejun is fine with the code we can do the larger patch upstream but not mark it for -stable backport. Once it's been upstream for a couple of weeks, once we are sure it does not regress, can we perhaps forward it to -stable ... Thanks, Ingo