From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 1/5] genirq: Add IRQ affinity notifiers Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:48:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20110119.134812.123988295.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110119.132730.57462002.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com, therbert@google.com To: tglx@linutronix.de Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:32976 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751973Ab1ASVri (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:47:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:39:04 +0100 (CET) > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, David Miller wrote: >> From: Thomas Gleixner >> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:19:04 +0100 (CET) >> >> > B1;2401;0cOn Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> > >> >> When initiating I/O on a multiqueue and multi-IRQ device, we may want >> >> to select a queue for which the response will be handled on the same >> >> or a nearby CPU. This requires a reverse-map of IRQ affinity. Add a >> >> notification mechanism to support this. >> >> >> >> This is based closely on work by Thomas Gleixner . >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings >> >> --- >> >> Thomas, I hope this answers all your comments. If you are happy with >> >> this, can it go into net-next-2.6 so the rest of this series can get >> >> into 2.6.39? >> > >> > Looks good, but I prefer to take it via the tip/genirq branch as I >> > have other changes pending to that code. I'll put this into a separate >> > branch based on rc1 as a single commit so Dave can pull that branch >> > into netdev. Dave ? >> >> But if you do that what happens down the line when Linus pulls our trees >> in? >> >> If he takes your tip/genirq first, I have merge hassles to deal with. >> >> If he takes the -rc1 relative version I end up with, you'll have the >> merge hassles. > > Nothing will happen and no hassels at all, because your tree and my > tree have the exact same commit with the exact same sha1. You don't > have further changes in your tree which touch genirq stuff and I don't > have anything which touches net. You said you had stuff before Ben's patches, and that's why you needed to provide me with an -rc1 relative version of his commits. If that's not the case, then yes it would work just fine. Just give me the URL to pull from, thanks!