Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:40:58 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: dipankar@in.ibm.com, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Paul E McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RCU: various merge candidates
Message-Id: <20060828124058.cca5f5ab.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060828191642.GA32697@in.ibm.com>
References: <20060828160845.GB3325@in.ibm.com>
	<20060828120611.afad8b0f.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060828191642.GA32697@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1266
Lines: 41

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:46:42 +0530
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> wrote:

> srcu (sleepable rcu) patches independent of the core RCU implementation
> changes in the patchset. You can queue these up either before
> or after srcu.
> 
> ...
>
> rcutorture fix patches independent of rcu implementation changes
> in this patchset.

So this patchset is largely orthogonal to the presently-queued stuff?
 
> > 
> > Now what?
> 
> Heh. I can always re-submit against -mm after I wait for a day or two
> for comments :)

That would be good, thanks.  We were seriously considering merging all the
SRCU stuff for 2.6.18, because
cpufreq-make-the-transition_notifier-chain-use-srcu.patch fixes a cpufreq
down()-in-irq-disabled warning at suspend time.

But that's a lot of new stuff just to fix a warning about something which
won't actually cause any misbehaviour.  We could just as well do

	if (irqs_disabled())
		down_read_trylock(...);	/* suspend */
	else
		down_read(...);

in cpufreq to temporarily shut the thing up.


-
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/