From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752229AbZILHqV (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:46:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752090AbZILHqV (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:46:21 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54016 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751156AbZILHqT (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:46:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:46:00 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] increase rcutorture intensity and fix a couple resulting bugs Message-ID: <20090912074600.GB25519@elte.hu> References: <20090908225349.GA19524@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <21629.1252518239@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21629.1252518239@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:53:49 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said: > > This patch series increases the intensity of rcutorture testing for > > TREE_PREEMPT_RCU and provides fixes for a couple resulting bugs. > > Minor bisection nit - should patch 1/3 be renumbered to 3/3, so > the two bugfix patches go in before the patch that makes the > unpatched bugs visible? Otherwise if a bisect waypoint happens to > land on 1/3, oddness can happen... Makes perfect sense - i've queued them up like that. Thanks, Ingo