Subject: Re: upcoming percpu changes

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:09:03 +0100

* Tejun Heo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 02/05/2010 02:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > The percpu tree currently in linux-next
> > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git#for-next)
> > contains a patch to remove the "per_cpu_" prefix from percpu variables
> > followed by  a set of patches to annotate all the percpu variables (and
> > accessing variables) with a __percpu tag to put them into a separate
> > sparse name space.  These latter patches are causing some merge conflicts
> > with a couple of trees (and will most likely cause more before the merge
> > window).  A solution to this is for you to accept the patch below into
> > your tree now and then the annotating patches can be sent to the
> > respective maintainers directly.
> > 
> > Of course, this assumes that you will accept the percpu changes during
> > the next merge window (and they are not completely without controversy)
> > and the proponents actually submit them :-).
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:09:11 +1100
> > Subject: [PATCH] percpu: add __percpu for sparse
> > 
> > This is to make the annotation of percpu variables during the next merge
> > window less painfull.
> > 
> > Extracted from a patch by Rusty Russell.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> 
> I agree that this would be the cleanest way to integrate things.
> Thanks for doing this.  If this gets in, I'll send individual patches
> to respective maintainers.
> 
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <[email-masked]>
> 
> For reference, the thread which contains the annoation patches is
> 
>   http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/25/107
> 
> Thanks.

Has the review feedback from Frederic and hpa been addressed? (and have they 
acked the solution?) That was the only controversial bit i remember.

Thanks,

	Ingo