Re: [RFC] Control dependencies

2013-11-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:59:41PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 11/22/2013 08:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >How about the below version? > > > >--- > >--- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > >+++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > >@@ -61,19 +61,20 @@ static void perf_output_put_handle(struc > >

Re: [RFC] Control dependencies

2013-11-22 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:02:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > > > +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > > > > My patch does not cover this file. Wouldn't hurt for them to be > > separate.

Re: [RFC] Control dependencies

2013-11-22 Thread Peter Hurley
On 11/22/2013 08:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: How about the below version? --- --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c @@ -61,19 +61,20 @@ static void perf_output_put_handle(struc * * kernel user * -*

Re: [RFC] Control dependencies

2013-11-22 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:02:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > > +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c > > My patch does not cover this file. Wouldn't hurt for them to be > separate. Oh sure, but I wanted to present the RFC with at least one working example