linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use this_cpu

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D1BA867.4070105@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:30:15 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use this_cpu_ops to optimize code

On 12/20/2010 05:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/18/2010 07:28 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Peter, these three patches are the x86 ones which were in
>> percpu#for-next but should go through x86 tree.  These should be
>> applied on top of percpu#this_cpu_ops.
> 
> Does that mean the latter is now a stable base that I can pull into -tip?
> 

Hi Tejun,

I talked this over with Ingo, and Ingo is really unhappy about making
-tip depend on the percpu tree ... he says "there are enough problems
with keeping the dependencies working as it is".  As such, it would be
better if you could take these patches in the percpu tree, with my ack.

	-hpa
--
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/