On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:00:50PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> > I'm perfectly OK with taking it through the SCSI tree. Probably the
> > path of least resistance.
>
> Applied to 4.16/scsi-queue and rebased so it sits before Bart's patch.
Thank you! I have removed this patch from -rcu.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:34:39AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:40:38 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:30:03PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > However, what's not clear
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:30:03PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 20:42 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:25:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 03:59:30 + Bart Van Assche
> > > wr
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:39:18PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 14:26 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 01:46:13PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > A common pattern in RCU code is to assign a new value to an RCU
> > >
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 01:46:13PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> A common pattern in RCU code is to assign a new value to an RCU
> pointer after having read and stored the old value. Introduce a
> macro for this pattern.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
> Cc: Paul E. Mc
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:23:43PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 06:07 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:15:23AM +, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > From: Nicholas Bellinger
> > >
> > > This p
Thanx, Paul
> Also, go ahead and do the same for target_unregister_template()
> to ensure se_deve_entry->rcu_head -> kfree_rcu() grace period has
> passed, before allowing target_core_fabric_ops->owner module exit
> to proceed.
>
> Cc: P
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:02:10PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 14:04 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:41:37PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 13:36 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:13:02PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 14:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> &g
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:02:10PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 14:04 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:29:45PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 16:30 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> &g
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:29:45PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 16:30 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 05/26/15 08:57, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > @@ -625,6 +626,7 @@ int core_dev_add_initiator_node_lun_acl(
> > > u32 lun_access)
> > > {
> > >
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:13:02PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 14:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 05/26/15 08:57, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > >- Add various rcu_dereference and lockless_dereference RCU notation
> >
> > Hello Nic,
> >
> > Feedback f
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:33:37AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 10:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:16:15AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 11/24/2014 09:22 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:35:46AM -07
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:16:15AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 09:22 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:35:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 11/24/2014 01:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:56:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:35:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 01:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:56:00PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>I would suggest looking into the possibility that we allocate the memory
> >>using the count of valid cpus, rather than
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:45:58PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 07:06:28 -0800
>
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:50:02PM +0200, Meelis Roos wrote:
> >> Perhaps DaveM can tell which one is coreect or if
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:50:02PM +0200, Meelis Roos wrote:
> Added DaveM and sparclinux to CC.
>
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:46:16AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Without help from Paul I can't even make sense
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:46:16AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Without help from Paul I can't even make sense of the message..
It looks to me like the SUN4U architecture is failing to invoke
rcu_irq_enter() on entry to the smp_call_function_single_client()
IPI handler.
And I am not seeing a
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:32:54AM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Feb 23 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> Please see below for a patch against the current version of
> >>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Does this update help?
>
> Thank you, this clarifies it.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 07:09:55PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 02/23/2014 06:50 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 03:35:31PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>Hi Paul,
> >>
> >>On 02/23/2014 11:37 AM,
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 03:35:31PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 02/23/2014 11:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >commit aba6b0e82c9de53eb032844f1932599f148ff68d
> >Author: Paul E. McKenney
> >Date: Sun Feb 23 08:34:24 2014 -0800
> >
> >
rce the unlock operation to complete,
again unraveling the deadlock.
Please see below for a patch against the current version of
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Does this update help?
Thanx, Paul
22 matches
Mail list logo
