On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote: > > > 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 patch looked OK. Have you tested it, such as using a this_cpu op on a > PREEMPT=y kernel in a preemptible section? That should trigger the preempt > warning.
The reason that certain __this_cpu ops were converted to raw_cpu ops is because they triggered the preemption check. The test was done in a kvm environment (as evident from the description). -- 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/
