From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757262Ab0LPS4F (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:56:05 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:48563 "EHLO mail-bw0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754887Ab0LPS4B (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:56:01 -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=RcfNPIlWUfUzW5BeYJPcIFO1VYCUpohJb+xfDQ8rblBo59XC1SS9YZvvEhpIssDua0 vO6mn3kAGgn6idrXl+2a6OgEE8g8k+zVgXRkaGTE0lb/aKSqCIqw4VJoNNfNWoR4KUv0 VKGF9v+PDXRUyq0kLbrIEEUYtFWUu6wmonIHE= Message-ID: <4D0A60BB.4020400@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:55:55 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 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> <4D0A3AF2.50508@gmail.com> <4D0A5823.7090200@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4D0A5823.7090200@zytor.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 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 Hello, On 12/16/2010 07:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/16/2010 08:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >> 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. > > Still looking through them (sorry.) I note that we probably do need to > get Christoph's followup patches into -tip, so we need to get it all > into tip; as such, even if it goes through your tree I'll need to pull > it into a tip branch. Yeah, no problem. Pekka also wants to pull the essential part into the memory allocator part, so I think it would be best to keep at least the proper percpu part and x86 specific ops in percpu tree tho. Thanks. -- tejun