Messages in this thread | | | From | "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <> | Subject | RE: PATCH: Replace current->state with set_current_state in 2.5.6 8 | Date | Tue, 6 May 2003 19:12:23 -0700 |
| |
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [mailto:acme@conectiva.com.br] > > > > And I don't really want to review a 176 KB patch (although I did already > > > look over most of it a few days ago). Do people want to take portions > > > of it for review and then see about Alan merging it, e.g.?
As long as they use set_current_state() and not the __ counterpart, then they are ok [the memory barrier being to blame for the lost performance if any is found].
> > Hmm. Has anyone considered a "Kernel Janitor's" tree? More specifically, > > a patch set, much like -ac or -mm, with the current cleanups so they > > can be tested, pulled, run through automated batch testing, etc.? > > That is an interesting idea, I'll probably start one.
That's very interesting.
Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |