From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:09:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20170630000956.GI2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetFilter , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , Tejun Heo , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Chris Metcalf List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:06:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, > > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock > > pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific > > arch_spin_unlock_wait(). > > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture. > > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message > instead of just one doesn't help anybody. Apologies, I will merge them. Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:60493 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584AbdF3AKO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:10:14 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5U08fs6069068 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:10:04 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2bd8cwpswe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:10:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:10:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:09:56 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20170630000956.GI2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetFilter , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , Tejun Heo , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Chris Metcalf Message-ID: <20170630000956.c90j6jAlaZXj-B4yNKoAnywhAX9YhmxgHk9_3vVk4j8@z> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:06:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, > > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock > > pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific > > arch_spin_unlock_wait(). > > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture. > > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message > instead of just one doesn't help anybody. Apologies, I will merge them. Thanx, Paul