[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060828124058.cca5f5ab.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:40:58 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: dipankar@...ibm.com, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RCU: various merge candidates
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:46:42 +0530
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> srcu (sleepable rcu) patches independent of the core RCU implementation
> changes in the patchset. You can queue these up either before
> or after srcu.
>
> ...
>
> rcutorture fix patches independent of rcu implementation changes
> in this patchset.
So this patchset is largely orthogonal to the presently-queued stuff?
> >
> > 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
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.
-
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