* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > And then instead of thanks I get insults sprinkled with some paranoia.
> >
> > Pointing out your lack of cooperation (such as repeatedly ignoring
> > maintainer feedback) is not an "insult" - it's my duty as a maintai
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > And then instead of thanks I get insults sprinkled with some paranoia.
>
> Pointing out your lack of cooperation (such as repeatedly ignoring
> maintainer feedback) is not an "insult" - it's my duty as a maintainer to
> protect other submitters who do th
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your lack of cooperation is getting ridiculous!
> > > > >
> > > > > And this kind of insulting behavior is really discouraging
> > > > > people to do work on the kernel.
> >
> > You can stop playing
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > And this kind of insulting behavior is really discouraging people to
> > > > do work on the kernel.
>
> You can stop playing the victim card: you are not a newbie anymore by any
> definition, you've been hacking the Linux kernel for how long, 10+ yea
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > No he did not. He mentioned something about debug_smp_processor_id() at
> > > the end of a post after talking about something else. Given your
> > > comments now I see what was meant. That was not really obvious in the
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > No he did not. He mentioned something about debug_smp_processor_id() at
> > the end of a post after talking about something else. Given your
> > comments now I see what was meant. That was not really obvious in the
> > first place.
>
> Holy cow, this is
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > During past review of your series Peter Zijlstra very explicitly told you
> > to reuse (and unify with) the preempt checks in lib/smp_processor_id.c!
> > See debug_smp_processor_id().
>
> No he did not. He mentioned som
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> During past review of your series Peter Zijlstra very explicitly told you
> to reuse (and unify with) the preempt checks in lib/smp_processor_id.c!
> See debug_smp_processor_id().
No he did not. He mentioned something about debug_smp_processor_id() at
the
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched/core.c2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/sched/core.c 2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> @@ -2566,6 +2566,29 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule
> exception_exit(prev_state);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONF
We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
modified to invoke the check before __this_cpu operation
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter
Index: linux/include/linux/percpu.h
=
10 matches
Mail list logo
