lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:30:42 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/11] rcu: call __rcu_read_unlock() in exit_rcu for tiny RCU On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:07:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:45:48AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > On 02/26/2011 03:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:29:46PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > >> On 02/23/2011 09:39 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h > > >>> index 015abae..3cb8e36 100644 > > >>> --- a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h > > >>> +++ b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h > > >> > > >> My original patch was just for tree RCU. It is not merged. > > >> I forgot the tiny RCU case then, this change is needed for tree & tiny RCU. > > > > > > Good catch, I have applied the TREE_RCU patch. I intend to submit > > > both for the next merge window. > > > > > > > Hi, Paul > > > > It is still not merged, and it is not in your git tree. > > Indeed it is not yet in my external git tree. Here is my normal work > flow: > > 1. Develop and test continuously. > > 2. Based on testing, review, etc., determin which commits are > ready for the next merge window. > > 3. Midway through the -rc releases, push the commits targeted > to the next merge window to rcu/next. Push any additional > commits to rcu/testing. > > 4. Towards the last -rc, rebase, retest, wait for the -next > tree to take the changes, and, if all is well, send Ingo > a pull request. > > Exposing your changes to -next during the merge window would cause > pointless irritation due to random conflicts with rapidly changing > code. > > > I'm writing some patches, to avoid conflict with your code, > > which branch I should based on? > > But, yes, it would be much easier for us to handle your changes if > I post them via -rcu. So I have created a new branch rcu/kfree_rcu > that is -not- consumed by -next. The rcu/next and rcu/testing > branches include your base kfree_rcu() patch, but not the uses of > it. These branches are based on 2.6.38, and I will move them ahead > at -rc3 or -rc4. > > These currently contain your original patches, but I will be pulling > your latest set. Which are now available at rcu/kfree_rcu. Thanx, Paul > > Is origin/rcu/next OK? > > origin/rcu/kfree_rcu for the moment to avoid messing up -next. But > it will be origin/rcu/next after rebasing onto -rc3 or -rc4. > > Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists