From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:44:25 +1000 Message-ID: <1377751465.4028.20.camel@pasglop> References: <1375758759-29629-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1375758759-29629-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Waiman Long , Alexander Viro , Jeff Layton , Miklos Szeredi , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Andi Kleen , "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" , "Norton, Scott J" To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 18:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Just FYI: I've merged two preparatory patches in my tree for the whole > lockref thing. Instead of applying your four patches as-is during the > merge window, I ended up writing two patches that introduce the > concept and use it in the dentry code *without* introducing any of the > new semantics yet. > > Waiman, I attributed the patches to you, even if they don't actually > look much like any of the patches you sent out. And because I was > trying very hard to make sure that no actual semantics changed, my > version doesn't have the dget_parent() lockless update code, for > example. I literally just did a search-and-replace of "->d_count" with > "->d_lockref.count" and then I fixed up a few things by hand (undid > one replacement in a comment, and used the helper functions where they > were semantically identical). > > You don't have to rewrite your patches if you don't want to, I'm > planning on cherry-picking the actual code changes during the merge > window. I've somewhat lost track of this, will I need some arch support for powerpc ? Cheers, Ben.