Re: [PATCH RFC V3 2/8] stop_machine: make stop_machine safe and efficient to call early

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 10/12/2011 12:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 12:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue,  4 Oct 2011 12:18:03 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>>>>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Make stop_machine() safe to call early in boot, before stop_machine()
>>>>> has been set up, by simply calling the callback function directly if
>>>>> there's only one CPU online.
>>>> Not that you need this, since it's >90% Tejun's code now, but:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
>>> hey, extra review is always useful.
>>>
>>> Jeremy, Tejun, what's the expected merge path of these changes?
>> Andrew has already picked up the stop_machine patch, I think.  But it's
>> pretty settled now, so it shouldn't cause any problem if it gets via
>> multiple paths.
>>
>> What about the jump-label stuff?  Has that been going via tip.git in the
>> past, or by some other path?
> If it has Jason's and PeterZ's ack then it can go via any other tree 
> in this cycle - we are not carrying jump label patches right now.
>
> But those acks are very much desired.

Jason has already Acked it, but then pointed out a couple of problems to
address.

I'll add PeterZ to the next repost.

    J