Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> So now we can focus on a better solution.

Could you have a look at Kiran's work?

Maybe one result of your work could be that the existing indirection
for alloc_percpu could be avoided?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: 2.6.16.1 & D state processes
• Next by Date: migration_entry_wait: Use the pte lock instead of the anon_vma lock.
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]