From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755058AbYKDJVj (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:21:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754755AbYKDJVQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:21:16 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54610 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660AbYKDJVO (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:21:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:19:56 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Suresh Siddha , "jens.axboe@oracle.com" , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Mallick, Asit K" Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement Message-ID: <20081104091956.GI23790@elte.hu> References: <20081029224229.GK30573@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20081030185322.GE17822@elte.hu> <20081030202322.GM30573@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <490A9337.6090504@goop.org> <20081031093924.GG30317@elte.hu> <490AE820.1010301@goop.org> <20081031165334.GA10468@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <490B6AE8.3040700@goop.org> <20081103101736.GI13671@elte.hu> <490F8DC9.9000005@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <490F8DC9.9000005@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0001] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> ok - so that makes it a v2.6.28 item i guess. >> > > The case Suresh is talking about was a fix to Xen itself, rather > than on the kernel side, so it doesn't need to be a .28 issue on > Xen's account. ok - but still the portion of the fix that strengthens barriers looks obvious to have and there's little downside that i can see. Suresh, you might want to split the patch(es) in two: get the barrier strengthening changes into v2.6.28 (to fix the x2apic bug), while the aspects that _weaken_ barriers can wait for v2.6.29. With that it would be a 100% safe change for v2.6.28-rc4. Ingo