From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754858Ab1AUJ0z (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:26:55 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:39988 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750810Ab1AUJ0x (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:26:53 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=cdtzRJC/68WBub193k5IYJWkwWWqqxP483NoGPFuBdE4RP74ZOJ8usfGHSQXBnqKSV 8Wyu272IF62x/XcHdcfBTR4bRujPH/KqWqX1rS3rp7k6JBC8rsiAt0TU5MJU8jFQO05b +mCCf3saPkUrsmDCMVxtv5e4O8IHPJvpFa+wo= Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:26:49 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Christoph Lameter , Mathieu Desnoyers , "H. Peter Anvin" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double Message-ID: <20110121092649.GA2832@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110106204513.669098445@linux.com> <20110106204525.222395863@linux.com> <4D263C91.30709@zytor.com> <20110107180419.GB23082@Krystal> <20110108172453.GF13269@mtj.dyndns.org> <4D393636.4040607@cs.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D393636.4040607@cs.helsinki.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:31:02AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 1/8/11 7:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >Call me weird but I like this one than others. It sure is ugly but > >the operation itself isn't a particularly pretty so it kinda matches. > >Also, this one is the least error prone and more consistent with other > >cpu ops. > > So what are we going to do about this patch? I'd love to merge > Christoph's SLUB patches for linux-next now that .38-rc1 is out. At least you like it, which is good. I don't think the currently proposed one with two separate parameters is significantly better than other alternatives and vice-versa. They all have slightly different ugliness and error proneness issues. That said, I still like the double parameter one best, and, unless there are distinctively good reasons to choose another one, I'm gonna commit it to percpu tree in a few days so that merge can proceed. So, if you have something to say, now would be a good time to assert it. Thank you. -- tejun