Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933275Ab0BYSUx (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:20:53 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:34702 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933253Ab0BYSUr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:20:47 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=zt86NAToy48A:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=jXk53AOw-curPzRON4MA:9 a=NYAJpJAZ_nkts4ZlKaQA:7 a=-64di9dCN7H_BrD2ld-XpqAfKX0A:4 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75 Subject: Add this to tip (was: Re: [RFC patch] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9)) From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: mingo@elte.hu, 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 In-Reply-To: <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> <20100225180014.GB6658@Krystal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:20:37 -0500 Message-ID: <1267122037.6328.40.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1316 Lines: 33 On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 13:00 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > 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 ? I agree this should probably go through tip. I'm sure Ingo is busy working through the merge window now too, and is not focusing on this thread. Anyway, this thread still has RFC in it. Send out a new patch (new thread) with the Subject: [PATCH -tip] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9)) With all Acked-by's given and state that it is ready for inclusion in v2.6.34. (make this statement at the top of the email) It may still not make 2.6.34, but at least it will be on its way to 2.6.25 (or 3.0 *wish*) -- Steve -- 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/