Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964938AbWH2AWz (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:22:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964944AbWH2AWz (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:22:55 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:49633 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964938AbWH2AWy (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:22:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:53:02 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: Andrew Morton Cc: Alan Stern , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Paul E McKenney Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RCU: various merge candidates Message-ID: <20060829002302.GC32697@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <20060828160845.GB3325@in.ibm.com> <20060828120611.afad8b0f.akpm@osdl.org> <20060828191642.GA32697@in.ibm.com> <20060828124058.cca5f5ab.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060828124058.cca5f5ab.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1742 Lines: 50 On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:40:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:46:42 +0530 > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > > > rcutorture fix patches independent of rcu implementation changes > > in this patchset. > > So this patchset is largely orthogonal to the presently-queued stuff? Yes, it should be. > > > 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 I think non-srcu rcutorture patches can be merged in 2.6.19. srcu is a tossup. Perhaps srcu and this patchset may be merge candidates for 2.6.20 should things go well in review and testing. Should I re-submit against 2.6.18-mm1 or so (after your patchset reduces in size) ? What is a convenient time ? > 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. GAh! cpufreq. Already I am having to look at all of cpufreq and the cpufreq drivers, change notifiers for the whole locking model for the other (hotplug) cleanup. I will keep this in mind. Thanks Dipankar - 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/