Re: [GIT PULL] irq_work changes for 3.9

2013-01-24 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > The printk changes for full dynticks support are still pending while > we don't know Linus's opinion about these. Meanwhile here is the > part of it that I think is uncontroversial. This way we can make > the next submission attempt to Linus a bit mor

Re: [GIT PULL] irq_work changes for 3.9

2013-01-16 Thread Andreas Mohr
Hi, [trimmed recipient list] On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:12:09PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/1/16 Andreas Mohr : > > Hell yeah that does sound like a potential candidate to me. > > > > Andreas Mohr > > I doubt it. I don't see a sound driver using struct irq_work: > > $git grep -F "s

Re: [GIT PULL] irq_work changes for 3.9

2013-01-16 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/1/16 Andreas Mohr : > Hi, > >> These three patches are general fixes for irq work. The two first >> patches fix tight races on global irq work claiming that prevent the irq work >> subsystem from dropping a work enqueuing attempt because it thinks it's >> already pending while it may be alread

Re: [GIT PULL] irq_work changes for 3.9

2013-01-16 Thread Andreas Mohr
Hi, > These three patches are general fixes for irq work. The two first > patches fix tight races on global irq work claiming that prevent the irq work > subsystem from dropping a work enqueuing attempt because it thinks it's > already pending while it may be already executing or executed. Would

[GIT PULL] irq_work changes for 3.9

2013-01-16 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
Hi Ingo, The printk changes for full dynticks support are still pending while we don't know Linus's opinion about these. Meanwhile here is the part of it that I think is uncontroversial. This way we can make the next submission attempt to Linus a bit more simple. These three patches are general f