Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933201Ab0BYSAV (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:21 -0500 Received: from mail.openrapids.net ([64.15.138.104]:37126 "EHLO blackscsi.openrapids.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933017Ab0BYSAS (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:00:15 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt , mingo@elte.hu Cc: Nick Piggin , Chris Friesen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , "Paul E. McKenney" , Nicholas Miell , Linus Torvalds , laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC patch] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9) Message-ID: <20100225180014.GB6658@Krystal> References: <20100212224606.GA30280@Krystal> <4B82CF1A.3010501@nortel.com> <20100222212321.GA2573@Krystal> <20100224091052.GY9738@laptop> <20100224152251.GA16295@Krystal> <20100225053310.GA9738@laptop> <20100225165301.GF24052@Krystal> <1267118726.6328.20.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20100225175121.GA6658@Krystal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100225175121.GA6658@Krystal> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://www.efficios.com X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-2-686 (i686) X-Uptime: 12:53:44 up 33 days, 20:31, 4 users, load average: 1.43, 0.78, 0.48 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1049 Lines: 27 * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com) wrote: [...] > But... either way we chose, we can extend the system call flags and parameters > as needed, so I think it really should not be part of this initial > implementation. So... considering all this discussion is about future enhancements that are not required by anyone at this stage, and that it will be possible to add these later on thanks to the extensible sys_membarrier() flags, I propose to merge v9 of this patch for 2.6.34. I think the logical path for this patch is to go through Ingo's tree, as it sits mostly along with the scheduler, but I have not heard anything from him yet. Am I taking the correct path ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/