[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121008191004.GA10306@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:10:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: dl8bcu@...bcu.de, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [regression] boot failure on alpha, bisected
On 10/08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Just wondering. As this is on an SMP system, perhaps the
> read_barrier_depends() vs. smp_read_barrier_depends() matters
> here?
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1209.3/00555.html
Yes, thanks, I do remember about this ;)
This will come as 2/2 which also removes the unnecessary "work = NULL"
initialization.
Oleg.
--
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