[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120514173421.GB2366@google.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:34:21 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...64.org,
davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, luto@....edu,
glommer@...allels.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, vapier@...too.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, dzickus@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
cbouatmailru@...il.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
len.brown@...el.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, anton@...ba.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] replace percpu_ops function with this_cpu_ops
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 04:00:12PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> I am sorry for mess commit log previous patchset.
>
> As Andrew Morton's request, I combind and clean up the patchset.
>
> According to Ingo's complain. I use the same and short
> 'this_cpu_ops' functions in x86 part code.
>
> Thanks for all comments!
>
> [PATCH 1/3] net: replace percpu_xxx funcs with this_cpu_xxx or
> [PATCH 2/3] x86: replace percpu_xxx funcs with this_cpu_xxx
> [PATCH 3/3] percpu: remove percpu_xxx() functions
All three patches look good to me.
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
I guess 0001 can go through net, 0002 through x86 and I can merge the
third one once both are in mainline. David, hpa, can you guys please
take the respective patch?
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
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