> [ Jan, Andi: This only changes arch/i386; can x86_64 be changed in the
> same way? ]
>
> [ Rebased onto Jan's x86_64-mm-consolidate-smp_send_stop patch ]
I already got the earlier patch of yours, but not Jan's patch :/
I'll sort it out.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
>
> smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
> duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
> implementing them in terms of the more
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
implementing them in terms of the more
[ Jan, Andi: This only changes arch/i386; can x86_64 be changed in the
same way? ]
[ Rebased onto Jan's x86_64-mm-consolidate-smp_send_stop patch ]
I already got the earlier patch of yours, but not Jan's patch :/
I'll sort it out.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
> patches against the x86 tree (at least).
>
How's this?
J
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I already got that patch, but haven't synced it out yet.
My patch? I just rebased it against Jan's patch
(x86_64-mm-consolidate-smp_send_stop.patch) which was causing the
conflict. Do you want that version instead?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Yup. There is a huge and growing amount of outstanding x86 work. As
> > always. Developing against mainline is very optimistic.
> >
>
> Sigh. Are you including Andi's patchset in -mm? Should I rebase to
> -mm, or
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:15:59 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
> > patches against the x86 tree (at least).
> >
>
> You mean this conflicts heavily with your and/or andi's
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yup. There is a huge and growing amount of outstanding x86 work. As
> always. Developing against mainline is very optimistic.
>
Sigh. Are you including Andi's patchset in -mm? Should I rebase to
-mm, or try to keep track of Andi's patchset?
J
-
To unsubscribe
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
> patches against the x86 tree (at least).
>
You mean this conflicts heavily with your and/or andi's tree?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:12:55 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
>
> smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
> duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
>
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:12:55 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
implementing
Andrew Morton wrote:
Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
patches against the x86 tree (at least).
You mean this conflicts heavily with your and/or andi's tree?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of
Andrew Morton wrote:
Yup. There is a huge and growing amount of outstanding x86 work. As
always. Developing against mainline is very optimistic.
Sigh. Are you including Andi's patchset in -mm? Should I rebase to
-mm, or try to keep track of Andi's patchset?
J
-
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:15:59 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
patches against the x86 tree (at least).
You mean this conflicts heavily with your and/or andi's tree?
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Yup. There is a huge and growing amount of outstanding x86 work. As
always. Developing against mainline is very optimistic.
Sigh. Are you including Andi's patchset in -mm? Should I rebase to
-mm, or try to keep
Andi Kleen wrote:
I already got that patch, but haven't synced it out yet.
My patch? I just rebased it against Jan's patch
(x86_64-mm-consolidate-smp_send_stop.patch) which was causing the
conflict. Do you want that version instead?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Andrew Morton wrote:
Hopeless, sorry. It's probably time to start thinking about raising x86
patches against the x86 tree (at least).
How's this?
J
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
implementing them in terms of the more general
smp_call_function_mask().
Signed-off-by: Jeremy
Subject: Simplify smp_call_function*() by using common implementation
smp_call_function and smp_call_function_single are almost complete
duplicates of the same logic. This patch combines them by
implementing them in terms of the more general
smp_call_function_mask().
Signed-off-by: Jeremy
20 matches
Mail list logo
