From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755448Ab3KEVUw (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:20:52 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:39921 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754728Ab3KEVUv (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:20:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 22:20:29 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, willy@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, airlied@gmail.com, maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] locking: Move mutex into kernel/locking/ Message-ID: <20131105212029.GT28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20131105105244.666320103@infradead.org> <20131105110026.878790658@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:26:38PM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/Makefile > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/Makefile > > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/Makefile > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ obj-y = fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o > > sysctl.o sysctl_binary.o capability.o ptrace.o timer.o user.o \ > > signal.o sys.o kmod.o workqueue.o pid.o task_work.o \ > > extable.o params.o posix-timers.o \ > > - kthread.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o mutex.o \ > > + kthread.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o \ > > hrtimer.o rwsem.o nsproxy.o semaphore.o \ > > notifier.o ksysfs.o cred.o reboot.o \ > > async.o range.o groups.o lglock.o smpboot.o > > This is probably a stupid question, but I haven't been able to find > one kernel version that this applies cleanly over ??? Oh my bad, it appears I made it against a working tree, not an actual published tree. That said, I don't think the rejects should be super hard to fix. If people don't object to the idea I'll respin against something published and testable.