From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752648AbdHQMtP (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:49:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:37621 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751369AbdHQMtN (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:49:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:49:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Message-ID: <20170817124909.5hhinhjguokxecp4@gmail.com> References: <20170724221252.GA14238@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1500934389-14942-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170815161629.GA14379@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170817082616.t34xbzbpdxd2lye2@gmail.com> <20170817123038.GK7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170817123038.GK7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > this change - or can I pick this up into the scheduler tree? > > Timely question! ;-) > > My current plan is to send you a pull request like the following later > today, Pacific Time (but rebased adding Steve Rostedt's Reviewed-by). > This patch is on one of the branches, currently v4.13-rc2..93d8d7a12090 > ("arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions") in my > -rcu tree. > > Ah, and v4.13-rc2..7391304c4959 ("membarrier: Expedited private command") > is mostly outside of RCU as well. > > Since I will be rebasing and remerging anyway, if you would prefer that I > split the spin_unlock_wait() and/or misc branches out, I am happy to do so. > If I don't hear otherwise, though, I will send all seven branches using > my usual approach. > > So, if you want something different than my usual approach, please just > let me know! No, all branches together sounds good to me! If you are rebasing anyway, here are some (very minor) commit title nits I noticed: > swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average > rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear Capitalization. > membarrier: Expedited private command Should start with a verb. > doc: RCU documentation update doc: Update RCU documentation ? > doc: No longer allowed to use rcu_dereference on non-pointers doc: Describe that it is no longer allowed to use rcu_dereference() on non-pointers ? > torture: Add --kconfig argument to kvm.sh > rcutorture: Don't wait for kernel when all builds fail Is there a difference between 'torture: ' and 'rcutorture: ' prefixes? Thanks, Ingo