On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:53:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:36:04PM +0200, 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. > > At some point, my only recourse would be to require an Acked-by from one > of you for any per-CPU changes proposed by the other. I really hope that > it doesn't come to that, but this situation is getting a bit annoying.
Nah, I'll not hold that over you. I think the current storm-in-teacup was mostly due us seeing something suspicous and not understanding the explanation well or so. > > And partly because I didn't get what was going on. While Frederic's > > explanation might be correct it was incomprehensible for me. > > And I freely admit that the comments on rcu_is_cpu_idle() are completely > inadequate, and I do apologize for that. Seemed clear at the time. > But then it always does, doesn't it? ;-) Yeah, I'm only all too familiar with this problem :/ -- 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/
