Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1713977
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair |
| Date | 2017-08-17 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ufspk-4V5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u6TRL-2Hk-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <u6TRN-2Hk-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <ueMJt-3xd-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <ufolI-2dr-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <ufsfD-4R7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > this change - or can I pick this up into the scheduler tree?
>
> Timely question! ;-)
>
> My current plan is to send you a pull request like the following later
> today, Pacific Time (but rebased adding Steve Rostedt's Reviewed-by).
> This patch is on one of the branches, currently v4.13-rc2..93d8d7a12090
> ("arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions") in my
> -rcu tree.
>
> Ah, and v4.13-rc2..7391304c4959 ("membarrier: Expedited private command")
> is mostly outside of RCU as well.
>
> Since I will be rebasing and remerging anyway, if you would prefer that I
> split the spin_unlock_wait() and/or misc branches out, I am happy to do so.
> If I don't hear otherwise, though, I will send all seven branches using
> my usual approach.
>
> So, if you want something different than my usual approach, please just
> let me know!
No, all branches together sounds good to me!
If you are rebasing anyway, here are some (very minor) commit title nits I noticed:
> swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average
> rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear
Capitalization.
> membarrier: Expedited private command
Should start with a verb.
> doc: RCU documentation update
doc: Update RCU documentation
?
> doc: No longer allowed to use rcu_dereference on non-pointers
doc: Describe that it is no longer allowed to use rcu_dereference() on non-pointers
?
> torture: Add --kconfig argument to kvm.sh
> rcutorture: Don't wait for kernel when all builds fail
Is there a difference between 'torture: ' and 'rcutorture: ' prefixes?
Thanks,
Ingo
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-15 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-08-16 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-17 10:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-17 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 17:40 +0200
csiph-web