From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:54:28 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma Subject: Re: 2.5.38-mm2 [PATCH] Message-ID: <20020924155428.B4085@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <3D8E96AA.C2FA7D8@digeo.com> <20020923151559.B29900@in.ibm.com> <20020924144109.2cbbdb36.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020924144109.2cbbdb36.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 02:41:09PM +1000 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rusty Russell Cc: akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 02:41:09PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:15:59 +0530 > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > Later I will submit a full rcu_ltimer patch that contains > > the call_rcu_preempt() interface which can be useful for > > module unloading and the likes. This doesn't affect > > the non-preemption path. > > You don't need this: I've dropped the requirement for module > unload. Isn't wait_for_later() similar to synchornize_kernel() or has the entire module unloading design been changed since ? Thanks -- Dipankar Sarma http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/