[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:38:46 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> That should also work, replacing the current tip of #for-next. Do you
> prefer to merge those two diffs of yours into a single commit?
If you're ok with my patch (it's now also tested, I'm running with it
and it looks fine), I'll commit that one as-is.
When you say "those two diffs of yours", which two are you talking
about? I already committed the "dead lockref" part separately - it may
be "preparatory", but it was preparatory cleanup that didn't change
semantics, so it's better to be separate anyway. The last patch I sent
out a few moments ago is the one that actually fixes things so that
"dput()" isn't done under the RCU lock etc.
Linus
--
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