From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754233Ab3J0NEU (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:04:20 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]:50443 "EHLO mail-qc0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753498Ab3J0NET (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:04:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:04:15 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] percpu: remove this_cpu_xor() Message-ID: <20131027130415.GA30307@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1382354737-59872-1-git-send-email-heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1382354737-59872-1-git-send-email-heiko.carstens@de.ibm.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 Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > While optimizing and testing s390's this_cpu ops I realized that > this_cpu_xor() generates broken code ("or" instead of "xor"). > > Since there is not a single user in the whole kernel tree it seems > to be a good opportunity to simply remove it instead of fixing it. > > These two patches only remove the generic and x86 variant. It doesn't > touch s390 since it would only generate a merge conflict later on. > I will take care of s390 anyway if the consensus is that it should be > removed. > > Heiko Carstens (2): > percpu: remove this_cpu_xor() implementation > x86: remove this_cpu_xor() implementation Applied to percpu/for-3.13. Thanks. -- tejun