From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751797AbWAJAng (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:43:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751798AbWAJAng (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:43:36 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:58828 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751797AbWAJAnf (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:43:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:43:17 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Paul E. McKenney" 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 In-Reply-To: <20060110002818.GD15083@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <43C165CE.AF913697@tv-sign.ru> <20060110002818.GD15083@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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.. Linus