On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:15:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 06:28:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Rik,
> >
> > And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
> > The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
>
> And
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:15:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 06:28:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Rik,
> >
> > And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
> > The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
>
> And
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 06:28:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Rik,
>
> And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
> The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
And it passes modest rcutorture testing, for whatever that might be
worth.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 06:28:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Rik,
>
> And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
> The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
And it passes modest rcutorture testing, for whatever that might be
worth.
Hello, Rik,
And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
commit
Hello, Rik,
And it turns out that I did not in fact do the recheck at IPI time.
The (untested) patch below is an alleged fix. Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
commit
6 matches
Mail list logo