From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754785Ab1HQXGx (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:06:53 -0400 Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:50724 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754452Ab1HQXGw (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:06:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:06:44 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Josh Boyer Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 3.0-git15 Atomic scheduling in pidmap_init Message-ID: <20110817230641.GA7837@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <20110808025505.GF29058@somewhere> <20110808031014.GE2385@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110809113514.GA27301@somewhere.redhat.com> <20110810124528.GC2566@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20110814230453.GP2650@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110815140416.GB2227@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20110815152052.GA2389@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110817223735.GI2227@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20110817224916.GO2419@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110817230219.GJ2227@zod.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110817230219.GJ2227@zod.bos.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 03:49:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 06:37:35PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:04:17AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > Please see the attached. > > > > > > > > > > Fixed it up quickly to apply on top of -rc2 and it seems to solve the > > > > > problem nicely. Thanks for the patch. > > > > > > > > Good to hear! I guess I should keep it, then. ;-) > > > > > > Hey Paul, were you going to send this to Linus for -rc3? I haven't seen > > > it come across LKML yet. > > > > I might... But does it qualify as a regression? That part of the > > code hasn't changed for some time now. > > It's a fix for a problem that is newly surfaced in 3.1. A regression, > likely not since it's been there forever, but new debugging options > uncovered it. I'm pretty sure the -rc stage takes fixes even if they > aren't regressions. Nope, after -rc1 only regressions fixes are taken (most of the time). > > josh