[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120123094759.GU1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:47:59 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
definition
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:15:31AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:42 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > This is version 3 of the set of patches removing
> > > __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM. The series was rebased on top of
> > > 3.3-rc1 and fixed the conflicts with the kernel/sched/ changes and the
> > > ARM LPAE patches. There are no functional changes from v2. I plan to
> > > push this to -next and get it ready for 3.4-rc1.
> > >
> > > Question for Peter/Ingo - how do we merge the first patch that
> > > introduces finish_arch_post_lock_switch? Do you pick it up or I can
> > > merge it via rmk (with your ack)?
> >
> > I'm fine either way, I'll probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I
> > can stack some other patches on top.
>
> In which case I would need Russell's acked-by.
That depends on knowing what CPU architectures this has been tested on,
and whether anyone external has tested it. It's definitely a change
which needs some tested-by tags on it.
--
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