On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Scott Wood writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:24PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > is there any specific reason, why out of these 7 patches only the first > > > one made it into the mainline? AFAICS, there has been only one comment, > > > suggesting to replace printk with dev_err on two occasions in one of > > > the patches... > > > > A while ago Paul said on IRC he'd prefer to do the TLF_SLEEPING hack more > > like the soft IRQ disabling that 64-bit uses. I haven't yet had a chance > > to look into it, so the patch collects dust, despite the current > > implementation of TLF_SLEEPING working just fine. > > I have taken a closer look at the TLF_SLEEPING patch and crystallized > my thoughts about it a bit: > > 1. Too many ifdefs - it's only a few instructions extra, so if we're > going to have the TLF_SLEEPING stuff we might as well have it > unconditionally. > > 2. It seems convoluted to me to go through transfer_to_handler_cont > and ret_from_except when we could just get out directly through > fast_exception_return, given that we are not calling a handler. The > only thing to watch out for there is that r7 and r8 haven't been > modified (or have been restored if they have). > > 3. The style in all the assembly code is not to have spaces after > commas separating instruction operands. > > The untested patch below is what I was thinking of. If you'd like to > try it out, I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
The patch (with the _TLF_SLEEPING fix you mentioned in a later email) works for me. Shall I submit it "From: <you>" or would you prefer to post it yourself? But, I guess, you have to put your "S-o-b" under it yourself, don't you? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
