On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 07:34:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > > parallel programming (esp
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:04:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth is that t
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth is that the incremen
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over
> that of sequenti
Hi,
I didn't actually try to compile the patch below; it didn't look like C
code so I wasn't sure what compiler to run it through. I guess maybe its
python? However, I'm very sure that the patches are completely correct,
because I read them, and I also know that Paul is a trustworthy programmer.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:19:25AM +0200, Lorenz Kolb wrote:
> With that patchset in mind, I am working on a really huge patch,
> which will greatly simplify the Linux kernel for the real problem
> of having that number of CPUs.
>
> That patch will have a lot of changes all over the architectures
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over
> that of sequenti
With that patchset in mind, I am working on a really huge patch, which
will greatly simplify the Linux kernel for the real problem of having
that number of CPUs.
That patch will have a lot of changes all over the architectures, so
what will be the best way to post it? Should I split it archit
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:00:08PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 00:33 +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth is that the increme
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 00:33 +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over
> that of sequential prog
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:25:02PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 01:15 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I didn't actually try to compile the patch below; it didn't look like
> > C code so I wasn't sure what compiler to run it through. I guess maybe
> > its python? Ho
On 03/31/2012 01:15 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I didn't actually try to compile the patch below; it didn't look like
> C code so I wasn't sure what compiler to run it through. I guess maybe
> its python? However, I'm very sure that the patches are completely
> correct, because I read
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't actually try to compile the patch below; it didn't look like C
> code so I wasn't sure what compiler to run it through. I guess maybe its
> python? However, I'm very sure that the patches are completely correct,
>
Hi,
I didn't actually try to compile the patch below; it didn't look like
C code so I wasn't sure what compiler to run it through. I guess maybe
its python? However, I'm very sure that the patches are completely
correct, because I read them, and I also know Paul. And I've heard of
Thomas Gleix
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 06:40:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 18:33, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 18:33, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over
> that of sequenti
17 matches
Mail list logo
