On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:04AM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:53 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > Does this satisfy your questions..? > > > > > > Do you have any more concerns about TASK_RUNNING + prepare_to_wait() > > > usage in percpu_ida_alloc() that need to be addressed before I can drop > > > this series into target-pending/for-next to address the original bug..? > > > > > > > Given the silence, > > You mean the silence in which I send a 4+ emails earlier today? > > > I'll assume your OK with the initial TASK_RUNNING + > > prepare_to_wait() bit, right..? > > No, I would prefer not to do that. While it does work its awkward at > best. I do like the improvements, but personally, I really don't see anything wrong with the initial patch and for backporting that really is what we should do - this code _is_ subtle enough backporting our (your) improvements is not something I'd want to do, having debugged this code when I first wrote it... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
