On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I saw those, he posted 'needs testing' patches. He still behaved > passive-aggressively, pretending that it was some difficult task to > perform, as if we were pulling his teeth.
I need your review of those. I will rediff as soon as rc1 is out to send something that can be put into -next. Please tell me until then if the approach is ok. I dont think we can do anything in the merge window. > The thing is, we should not be forced to shout at him at all: Christoph's > should be _proactive_ in addressing the shortcomings that were readily > pointed out literally years ago during review in a friendly fashion, > instead of wasting a lot of people's time trying to argue around it... I have fixed all the issues that Steven pointed out in the past about suspicious __this_cpu operations a long time ago. He seemed to want to implement the checks at that point. Not that difficult if one adds new variants of this_cpu operations. Which was an issue initially. The irqsafe_ this_cpu variants were nixed as the time because it was seen to be too complicated. -- 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/
