From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:13:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171009131314.GA28164@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171009124921.wtbzvqagges44brq@yury-thinkpad>
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:59:36AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:30:52AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > There were 2 preparing patches in the series:
> > > [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock
> > > and
> > > [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include <linux/atomic.h> in qspinlock_types.h
> > >
> > > 1st patch is not needed anymore because Babu Moger submitted similar patch that
> > > is already in mainline: 9ab6055f95903 ("kernel/locking: Fix compile error with
> > > qrwlock.c"). Could you revisit second patch?
> >
> > Sorry, not sure what you're asking me to do here.
>
> It removes unneeded #include <linux/atomic.h> in
> include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h. Could you or someone else take
> it upstream?
My patch implements qrwlocks, not qspinlocks, so it's a bit weird to take
this random patch in the same series. Given that Arnd acked it, I'd suggest
either sending it through him, or leaving it until I get round to looking at
qspinlock for arm64 (see my reply to Peter).
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jeremy.Linton@arm.com,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com,
boqun.feng@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:13:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171009131314.GA28164@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171009124921.wtbzvqagges44brq@yury-thinkpad>
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:59:36AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:30:52AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > There were 2 preparing patches in the series:
> > > [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock
> > > and
> > > [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include <linux/atomic.h> in qspinlock_types.h
> > >
> > > 1st patch is not needed anymore because Babu Moger submitted similar patch that
> > > is already in mainline: 9ab6055f95903 ("kernel/locking: Fix compile error with
> > > qrwlock.c"). Could you revisit second patch?
> >
> > Sorry, not sure what you're asking me to do here.
>
> It removes unneeded #include <linux/atomic.h> in
> include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h. Could you or someone else take
> it upstream?
My patch implements qrwlocks, not qspinlocks, so it's a bit weird to take
this random patch in the same series. Given that Arnd acked it, I'd suggest
either sending it through him, or leaving it until I get round to looking at
qspinlock for arm64 (see my reply to Peter).
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-09 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-06 13:34 [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] kernel/locking: Use struct qrwlock instead of struct __qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] locking/atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] kernel/locking: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire when spinning in qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-08 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
2017-10-08 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
2017-10-09 11:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 11:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] arm64: locking: Move rwlock implementation over to qrwlocks Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-10 1:34 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-10 1:34 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-11 11:49 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-11 11:49 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-11 14:03 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-11 14:03 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-06 13:34 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] kernel/locking: Prevent slowpath writers getting held up by fastpath Will Deacon
2017-10-06 13:34 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-08 21:30 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock Yury Norov
2017-10-08 21:30 ` Yury Norov
2017-10-09 6:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 6:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 10:02 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 10:02 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 12:49 ` Yury Norov
2017-10-09 12:49 ` Yury Norov
2017-10-09 13:13 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-10-09 13:13 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 21:19 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-09 21:19 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-09 22:31 ` Jeremy Linton
2017-10-09 22:31 ` Jeremy Linton
2017-10-10 18:20 ` Adam Wallis
2017-10-10 18:20 ` Adam Wallis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171009131314.GA28164@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.