[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329140304.GA24478@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:03:04 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, adobriyan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] extable and module add object is static
* Tejun Heo (tj@...nel.org) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 03/29/2010 10:16 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > That's great! Tejun, can you point me out to an update version of these
> > patches ? I am particularly interested in being able to know the range of
> > statically defined per-cpu data.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/958794/focus=959493
>
> These were waiting for Rusty's ACK. They got ACKed today and will be
> pushed to mainline through percpu tree soonish.
OK. I just figured that I could initialize the rcu_heads in all cases in the
debugobject fixup anyway, so I guess I won't need "object_is_static()" after
all. But I can keep the patch around so it can eventually be re-sent to
standardize the debugobjects activation fixups. They currently need to keep a
flag around to identify statically defined objects.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D 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@...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