[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515E54BD.2090300@synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:06:13 +0530
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
Pierrick Hascoet <pierrick.hascoet@...lis.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Gaurantee spinlocks implicit barrier for !PREEMPT_COUNT
Hi Thomas,
On 04/04/2013 08:58 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hi Vineet,
>
> Our stress testing campaign has just successfully completed on this
> patch. It seems to solve several issues we have seen in unpatched
> versions, amongst others the original timer issue, a crash in hrtimer
> rb-tree manipulation etc.
>
> Greetings,
> Christian
Given that we are closing on 3.9 release, and that one/more of these patches fix a
real issue for us - can you please consider my earlier patch to fix
timer_pending() only for 3.9 [http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1508224.html]
This will be a localized / low risk change for this late in cycle.
For 3.10 - assuming preempt_* change is blessed, we can revert this one and add
that fuller/better fix.
What do you think ?
Thx,
-Vineet
--
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