From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934888AbZDHSLA (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:11:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759951AbZDHSKu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:10:50 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:58760 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758354AbZDHSKu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:10:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:10:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Josh Boyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, peterz@infradead.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, kernel@wantstofly.org, andi@firstfloor.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, deller@gmx.de, davem@davemloft.net, ralf@linux-mips.org, jes@sgi.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, anton@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] Convert CONFIG_SMP=y powerpc defconfigs to TREE_RCU. Message-ID: <20090408181005.GA2784@elte.hu> References: <3181463559098978317@unknownmsgid> <625fc13d0904040621g7b89cd2cq9681ce80635a65c4@mail.gmail.com> <20090404163149.GC6893@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090405101756.GA10490@elte.hu> <20090405164420.GI6893@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090408124623.GH18581@elte.hu> <20090408174841.GE6745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090408174841.GE6745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > So no, there's no requirement to touch defconfigs - to the > > contrary: it has way too wide of a cross section with other > > trees to be really practical to carry in the RCU tree. > > Sounds good to me!!! So, is http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/3/561 > sufficient, or should I repost? I have queued up your patch: 31c9a24: RCU: make treercu be default ... a week ago :-) Ingo