From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752895Ab2AWJsV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:48:21 -0500
Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:50515 "EHLO
	caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752681Ab2AWJsU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:48:20 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:47:59 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: Remove the __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
	definition
Message-ID: <20120123094759.GU1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1327081352-13178-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <1327310131.2446.1.camel@twins> <20120123092624.GA11983@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120123092624.GA11983@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:15:31AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:42 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > This is version 3 of the set of patches removing
> > > __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM. The series was rebased on top of
> > > 3.3-rc1 and fixed the conflicts with the kernel/sched/ changes and the
> > > ARM LPAE patches. There are no functional changes from v2. I plan to
> > > push this to -next and get it ready for 3.4-rc1.
> > > 
> > > Question for Peter/Ingo - how do we merge the first patch that
> > > introduces finish_arch_post_lock_switch? Do you pick it up or I can
> > > merge it via rmk (with your ack)?
> > 
> > I'm fine either way, I'll probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I
> > can stack some other patches on top.
> 
> In which case I would need Russell's acked-by.

That depends on knowing what CPU architectures this has been tested on,
and whether anyone external has tested it.  It's definitely a change
which needs some tested-by tags on it.