[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180403124202.GD4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:42:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:39:08PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > I figured that since there were only a handful of users it wasn't a
> > popular API, also David very much knew of those patches changing it so
> > could easily have pulled in the special tip/sched/wait branch :/
>
> I'm not sure I could, since I have to base on net-next. I'm not sure what
> DaveM's policy on that is.
>
> Also, it might've been better not to simply erase the atomic_t wait API
> immediately, but substitute wrappers for it to be removed one iteration hence.
Yeah, I know, but I really wasn't expecting new users of this thing, it
seemed like quite an exotic API with very limited users.
A well..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists