Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932327AbaAWTes (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:34:48 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:63623 "EHLO mail-pb0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932189AbaAWTeo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:34:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:34:41 -0800 From: Kent Overstreet To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers accept task state bitmask Message-ID: <20140123193441.GV9037@kmo> References: <1390189486-13579-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <1390189486-13579-2-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <20140120113415.GE30183@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140121221852.GT9037@kmo> <1390420413.5567.949.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <1390502404.5567.994.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <20140123191229.GW11314@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140123191229.GW11314@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:04AM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:53 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > Does this satisfy your questions..? > > > > > > Do you have any more concerns about TASK_RUNNING + prepare_to_wait() > > > usage in percpu_ida_alloc() that need to be addressed before I can drop > > > this series into target-pending/for-next to address the original bug..? > > > > > > > Given the silence, > > You mean the silence in which I send a 4+ emails earlier today? > > > I'll assume your OK with the initial TASK_RUNNING + > > prepare_to_wait() bit, right..? > > No, I would prefer not to do that. While it does work its awkward at > best. I do like the improvements, but personally, I really don't see anything wrong with the initial patch and for backporting that really is what we should do - this code _is_ subtle enough backporting our (your) improvements is not something I'd want to do, having debugged this code when I first wrote it... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/