From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753985Ab0L2Vaj (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:30:39 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:56377 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753524Ab0L2Vai (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:30:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4D1BA867.4070105@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:30:15 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" 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 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Christoph Lameter , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use this_cpu_ops to optimize code References: <4D0CD337.4080407@kernel.org> <4D100400.7060104@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4D100400.7060104@zytor.com> 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 On 12/20/2010 05:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/18/2010 07:28 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Peter, these three patches are the x86 ones which were in >> percpu#for-next but should go through x86 tree. These should be >> applied on top of percpu#this_cpu_ops. > > Does that mean the latter is now a stable base that I can pull into -tip? > Hi Tejun, I talked this over with Ingo, and Ingo is really unhappy about making -tip depend on the percpu tree ... he says "there are enough problems with keeping the dependencies working as it is". As such, it would be better if you could take these patches in the percpu tree, with my ack. -hpa