From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750796AbWAJCyM (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:54:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750834AbWAJCyM (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:54:12 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:37266 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750796AbWAJCyL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:54:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:54:39 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma , Manfred Spraul , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] rcu: join rcu_ctrlblk and rcu_state Message-ID: <20060110025439.GI14738@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <43C165CE.AF913697@tv-sign.ru> <20060110002818.GD15083@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 04:43:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > This patch looks sane to me. It passes a short one-hour rcutorture > > on ppc64 and x86, firing up some overnight runs as well. > > > > Dipankar, Manfred, any other concerns? Cacheline alignment? (Seems > > to me this code is far enough from the fastpath that this should not > > be a problem, but thought I should ask.) > > I'd ask you and Oleg to re-synchronize, and perhaps Oleg to re-send the > (part of?) the series that has no debate. I'm unsure, for example, whether > #2 was just to be dropped. I believe that the original #2 is to be dropped, but that the patch Oleg submitted in: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113681388600342&w=2 may be needed. I have added Vatsa to the CC to get his take on this. However, this patch should be independent from #4, so it should be OK to apply an updated #4 first while we are working out what to do about #2. > I already applied #1, and it looks like there's agreement on #3 and #4, > but basically, just to make sure, can Oleg please re-send to make sure I > got it right? > > Getting a screwed-up RCU thing is going to be too painful to debug, so I'd > rather get it right the first time it hits my tree.. Been there more times than I care to admit, and I most definitely agree!!! Thanx, Paul