From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8ECC282E0 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 20:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1811E2171F for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 20:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="Url4Yik5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727725AbfDSU7F (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:05 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.142.138]:52494 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726358AbfDSU7E (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4602B1F7A; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail02.efficios.com [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 7_oVTEbGot9U; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38716B1F77; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 38716B1F77 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1555707542; bh=QabJ/YC/LKiPQbCTiMhkOIEHrQcIVR8s1lMctjcDh6Q=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Url4Yik5RfvVfzEs109NMmZT37ijLb8Qi6pdiIHPQ0T8c0KNT4yIBuhEUWx5OLZwn 4SVS8gcHhuSqanvzUBCkuI3ekcFKHy3qpXO0mKGW25OQHtS2Z94seAo2rHj3qb0m3H CVPQ+u2FS3/9nlYliOsHF8rJTs845fKFlHsLJX9cB7PSpqP1C4csMCd0hbKljGqOnt S54WihSe5+wD6C2LyFSKFrv2aRZkLC9SA4qbwxu/601M4CCLqR7PufWXePrgOtlIxm 28Q5c9LX8+lrpzzbNHxBGG4kFxWaTrrxPJ/mFRoKwzhHD3KFXyC3Arr26BSrA1M31A y7p7F0xHAkcwA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail02.efficios.com [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id MMZS_4jG5WdG; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail02.efficios.com (mail02.efficios.com [167.114.142.138]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13393B1F69; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: shuah Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel , linux-api , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E . McKenney" , Boqun Feng , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Watson , Paul Turner , Andrew Morton , Russell King , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Chris Lameter , Ben Maurer , rostedt , Josh Triplett , Linus Torvalds , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Michael Kerrisk , Joel Fernandes , linux-kselftest Message-ID: <1136505826.203.1555707541777.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20190305194755.2602-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1444419838.71.1555677682502.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1266612341.87.1555678507226.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <614774674.134.1555681346941.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1863599735.141.1555681723685.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <6ba0796c-8a96-f797-265c-37bfb9b4bb71@kernel.org> <580328197.148.1555684824260.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH for 5.1 3/3] rseq/selftests: Adapt number of threads to the number of detected cpus MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.142.138] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.12_GA_3794 (ZimbraWebClient - FF66 (Linux)/8.8.12_GA_3794) Thread-Topic: rseq/selftests: Adapt number of threads to the number of detected cpus Thread-Index: YAfWAh+GAzq5aLOBJFEB8cRAPFCeSg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- On Apr 19, 2019, at 2:57 PM, shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote: [...] > Should I drop this patch that is currently in linux-kseltest next? Just > confirming if your new patch is supposed to be applied on top of this > one or not? We should keep this patch in linux-kselftest next. The fix applies on top of it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH for 5.1 3/3] rseq/selftests: Adapt number of threads to the number of detected cpus In-Reply-To: References: <20190305194755.2602-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1444419838.71.1555677682502.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1266612341.87.1555678507226.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <614774674.134.1555681346941.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1863599735.141.1555681723685.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <6ba0796c-8a96-f797-265c-37bfb9b4bb71@kernel.org> <580328197.148.1555684824260.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Message-ID: <1136505826.203.1555707541777.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> ----- On Apr 19, 2019, at 2:57 PM, shuah shuah at kernel.org wrote: [...] > Should I drop this patch that is currently in linux-kseltest next? Just > confirming if your new patch is supposed to be applied on top of this > one or not? We should keep this patch in linux-kselftest next. The fix applies on top of it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH for 5.1 3/3] rseq/selftests: Adapt number of threads to the number of detected cpus In-Reply-To: References: <20190305194755.2602-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1444419838.71.1555677682502.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1266612341.87.1555678507226.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <614774674.134.1555681346941.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1863599735.141.1555681723685.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <6ba0796c-8a96-f797-265c-37bfb9b4bb71@kernel.org> <580328197.148.1555684824260.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Message-ID: <1136505826.203.1555707541777.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190419205901.PzEXaY3eEeGs6q-TSd3jOTaHxBElxrRUcIl4d0W87Ho@z> ----- On Apr 19, 2019,@2:57 PM, shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote: [...] > Should I drop this patch that is currently in linux-kseltest next? Just > confirming if your new patch is supposed to be applied on top of this > one or not? We should keep this patch in linux-kselftest next. The fix applies on top of it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [PATCH for 5.1 3/3] rseq/selftests: Adapt number of threads to the number of detected cpus Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1136505826.203.1555707541777.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20190305194755.2602-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1444419838.71.1555677682502.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1266612341.87.1555678507226.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <614774674.134.1555681346941.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1863599735.141.1555681723685.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <6ba0796c-8a96-f797-265c-37bfb9b4bb71@kernel.org> <580328197.148.1555684824260.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: shuah Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel , linux-api , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E . McKenney" , Boqun Feng , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Watson , Paul Turner , Andrew Morton , Russell King , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Chris Lameter , Ben Maurer , rostedt , Josh Triplett , Linus Torvalds , Catalin Marinas List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org ----- On Apr 19, 2019, at 2:57 PM, shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote: [...] > Should I drop this patch that is currently in linux-kseltest next? Just > confirming if your new patch is supposed to be applied on top of this > one or not? We should keep this patch in linux-kselftest next. The fix applies on top of it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com