[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020909030705x7909cf07w7ea0d3662a66c5cc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:05:30 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Netfilter Developers <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slab_pad_check() and SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Oh, sure, the fix looks sane to me. It's just that I am a complete
>> coward when it comes to merging RCU related patches so I always try to
>> fish an Acked-by from Paul or Christoph ;).
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Christoph
Lameter<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I am fine with acking the poison piece.
Ok.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Christoph
Lameter<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I did not ack the patch that added rcu to kmem_cache_destroy() and I
> likely wont ack that piece either.
Right. I didn't remember that I merged that over your NAK but I don't
share your view that kmem_cache_destroy() callers should do
rcu_barrier() or whatever is necessary if we can do it from
kmem_cache_destroy(). So I am happy to take both changes but I would
appreciate them being split into two separate patches.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists