On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:49:42PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:23:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > And guys, I have to say that the advice on which per-CPU primitive to use > > > varies wildly and randomly. For all I know, each of you individually > > > might well be sticking to the same story, but taken together, your > > > collective advice is strongly resembling white noise. > > > > Its partly because cl and I disagree on things. He doesn't seem to care > > much about validation and believes that people will not make mistakes > > with this stuff. > > Slander. Certainly validation is good. Its just that PREEMPT kernels are > not in use
Complete bullshit, its part of the mainline kernel, lots of people run them -- including me, and any patch is supposed to keep it working. > and AFAICT the full preempt stuff requires significant developer > support and complicates the code without much benefit. More bullshit, each and every patch submitted must fully support all preemption modes supported by the kernel. CONFIG_PREEMPT is in, no two ways about it. Breaking it is a regression and reason to revert stuff. Therefore every Linux developer supports it per definition. And clearly the complication is worth it for enough people, otherwise it wouldn't be there. The absolute worst part about you is your inability/unwillingness to look beyond your immediate concern. Please pull head from arse. > Having said that I am trying to support preeempt checks. The newest > __get_cpu_var patchset introduces the preempt checks that you want. Good, I did see some patches from you but haven't come around to looking at them. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
