RE: PATCH: Replace current->state with set_current_state in 2.5.6 8

[Randy.Dunlap]

>
>> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>
>> > > 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].

Yes, last week at least the patch did use set_current_state() almost
exclusively, even when it didn't need to -- most likely.

>> > 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.

Yay!
Thanks, acme.

~Randy