Ingo,
> would be nice if you could give your Acked-by for the sputrace bits,
> then we can merge it. It's a oneliner so it shouldnt cause merging
> trouble in linux-next.
Sure!
Acked-by: Jeremy Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeremy
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
* Jeremy Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> > that wont work very well as the patch relies on the new
> > marker_synchronize_unregister() facility.
>
> d'oh, right you are. Should I leave this in your hands to merge?
would be nice if you could give your Acked-by for the sputrace bits,
Ingo,
> that wont work very well as the patch relies on the new
> marker_synchronize_unregister() facility.
d'oh, right you are. Should I leave this in your hands to merge?
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://
* Jeremy Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mathieu,
>
> > We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to
> > make sure every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section
> > and thus are not executing the probe code anymore.
>
> Looks good - added to spufs.git.
Mathieu,
> We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to
> make sure every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section
> and thus are not executing the probe code anymore.
Looks good - added to spufs.git.
Cheers,
Jeremy
We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make sure
every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
executing the probe code anymore.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Jeremy Kerr <[
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:11:47AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make
> sure
> every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
> executing the probe code anymore.
Looks good.
___
