Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-23 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:07:49 -0400 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:35:00PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Well thank you, how about you? > > Heh, can't complain. Hope to see you around sometime. It's been > forever. Yeah, it has been. Hopefully I'll see you arou

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-22 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:35:00PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Well thank you, how about you? Heh, can't complain. Hope to see you around sometime. It's been forever. > Trying a new mail client, sorry. It *seems* to be working now, how's > this? Hmm... Still encoded. > From d0cb90

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:23:43 -0400 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Nick. > > How have you been? :) Hey Tejun, Well thank you, how about you? > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:57:11PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 > > Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > > > Some archi

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:16:25 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, Nick. > > > > How have you been? :) > > > > He is baack. Are we getting SL!B? ;-) > Hey Christoph. Sure, why not.

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Nick. > > How have you been? :) > He is baack. Are we getting SL!B? ;-)

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Nick. How have you been? :) On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:57:11PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 > Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > Some architectures require an additional load to find the address of > > percpu pointers. In some implemenatations, the C alias

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:37 +1000 Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Some architectures require an additional load to find the address of > percpu pointers. In some implemenatations, the C aliasing rules do not > allow the result of that load to be kept over the store that modifies > the percpu variable,

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test ERROR on asm-generic/master] [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to re

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test WARNING on asm-generic/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) t

Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve generic percpu modify-return implementation

2016-09-21 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi Nicholas, [auto build test ERROR on asm-generic/master] [also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc7 next-20160920] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to re