[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw8wSe-DUtZ8=rjFJzXYmOSsZ0JzS-_jsZKrDai8LZMXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:25:01 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Tasks stuck in futex code (in 3.14-rc6)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>
> Oh, it does. This atomics technique was tested at a customer's site and
> ready for upstream.
I'm not worried about the *original* patch. I'm worried about the
incremental one.
Your original patch never applied to my tree - I think it was based on
-mm or something. So I couldn't verify my "let's go back to the
explicit 'waiters'" incremental patch against reverting and
re-applying the original patch.
So I'd like you to re-verify that that incremental patch really is
solid, and does what your original one did.
Linus
--
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