On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:38:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I did take a shot at adding the rcu_sync stuff during this past merge > > window, but it did not converge quickly enough to make it. It looks > > quite good for the next merge window. There have been changes in most > > of the relevant areas, so probably best to just try them and see which > > works best. > > Heh, I'm having a bit of trouble following. Are you saying that the > changes would be too big for -stable? If so, I'll send out reverts of > the culprit patches and then reapply them for this cycle so that it > can land together with the rcu changes in the next merge window, but > it'd be great to find out whether the rcu changes are enough for the > issue that Christian is seeing to go away. If not, I'll switch to a > different locking scheme and mark those patches w/ stable tag. Well, the decision as to what is too big for -stable is owned by the -stable maintainers, not by me. I am suggesting trying the options and seeing what works best, then working to convince people as needed. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
