From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762701AbZLQItd (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:49:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757594AbZLQIta (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:49:30 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42016 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754088AbZLQIt3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:49:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:49:12 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Teach might_sleep() about preemptible RCU Message-ID: <20091217084912.GB1901@elte.hu> References: <20091216142536.GA18091@elte.hu> <1260991265-8451-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20091216192354.GC5211@nowhere> <20091217013700.GL6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091217013700.GL6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 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: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 08:23:57PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > From: tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker > > > > Crap... I think I'm really becoming this cyborg... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > > Although I've happily put Paul's Reviewed-by tag in this v2, > > I'd feel more comfortable if he could confirm it :) > > Given that I missed the TINY_RCU problem, I am not sure how much my > Reviewed-by tag is worth, but I have no problem attaching it to this updated > patch. ;-) Reviewed-by is valuable in terms of you both acking the patch and expressing that you thought it through and like it. It does not mean you have done a mental kernel build test of all 2^3000 kernel .config variants and have proven the patch correct under circumstances! :-) So yes, i've added it - thanks Paul! Ingo