From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752324Ab0LPQOz (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:14:55 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:48460 "EHLO mail-bw0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752064Ab0LPQOr (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:14:47 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Jl/gEVrm/Y/u32/pjczpI3O9x+lkMmom/EfgAkYvHsvD4vzNNHTCAaiMW+XuhgpjPy LKewK+1QNSdRDrh0AB4c0SfThM7K3OKZJbUGbGzeJ9TEFwRymCxGsh7CwkYOZ84aLdfK UGa7gNGfPY4j8JPuOh1zHnCeHeIex62ub/7C4= Message-ID: <4D0A3AF2.50508@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:14:42 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Christoph Lameter , Eric Dumazet , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid lock semantics References: <20101214162842.542421046@linux.com> <20101214162855.392020353@linux.com> <1292345072.5934.32.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4D07A2B7.8080405@zytor.com> <4D07A7CB.7010205@zytor.com> <4D07A95C.7030703@kernel.org> <4D0814AF.7080209@zytor.com> <4D08ECEF.3040909@kernel.org> <4D08EE57.8010602@zytor.com> <4D08EF4E.8070403@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4D08EF4E.8070403@kernel.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey, again. On 12/15/2010 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'd prefer percpu things going through percpu tree, if for nothing > else for git history's sake, but I don't think it really matters. The > series is spread all over the place anyway. As long as each > maintainer is properly alerted about the changes, it should be okay. > Please let me know whether you agree with the changes currently queued > in percpu#for-next. I'll update the tree with your Acked-by's and > freeze it. Are you okay with the patches currently in percpu#for-next? If so, I'll regenerate patches with your acked-by and pop the two previously mentioned commits and proceed with the rest of the series. Thank you. -- tejun