From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maarten Lankhorst Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:16:32 +0200 Message-ID: <51C2F2A0.3080606@canonical.com> References: <20130620112811.4001.86934.stgit@patser> <20130620113111.4001.47384.stgit@patser> <20130620115532.GA12479@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130620115532.GA12479@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Op 20-06-13 13:55, Ingo Molnar schreef: > * Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Changes since RFC patch v1: >> - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. >> - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow >> - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called) >> Changes since RFC patch v2: >> - remove use of __mutex_lock_retval_arg, add warnings when using wrong combination of >> mutex_(,reserve_)lock/unlock. >> Changes since v1: >> - Add __always_inline to __mutex_lock_common, otherwise reservation paths can be >> triggered from normal locks, because __builtin_constant_p might evaluate to false >> for the constant 0 in that case. Tests for this have been added in the next patch. >> - Updated documentation slightly. >> Changes since v2: >> - Renamed everything to ww_mutex. (mlankhorst) >> - Added ww_acquire_ctx and ww_class. (mlankhorst) >> - Added a lot of checks for wrong api usage. (mlankhorst) >> - Documentation updates. (danvet) >> Changes since v3: >> - Small documentation fixes (robclark) >> - Memory barrier fix (danvet) >> Changes since v4: >> - Remove ww_mutex_unlock_single and ww_mutex_lock_single. >> - Rename ww_mutex_trylock_single to ww_mutex_trylock. >> - Remove separate implementations of ww_mutex_lock_slow*, normal >> functions can be used. Inline versions still exist for extra >> debugging. >> - Cleanup unneeded memory barriers, add comment to the remaining >> smp_mb(). > That's not a proper changelog. It should be a short description of what it > does, possibly referring to the new Documentation/ww-mutex-design.txt file > for more details. Well they've helped me with some of the changes and contributed some code and/or fixes, but if acked-by is preferred I'll use that.. >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark > That's not a valid signoff chain: the last signoff in the chain is the > person sending me the patch. The first signoff is the person who wrote the > patch. The other two gents should be Acked-by I suspect? > I guess so. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:42126 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757310Ab3FTMQh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:16:37 -0400 Message-ID: <51C2F2A0.3080606@canonical.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:16:32 +0200 From: Maarten Lankhorst MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v5 References: <20130620112811.4001.86934.stgit@patser> <20130620113111.4001.47384.stgit@patser> <20130620115532.GA12479@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130620115532.GA12479@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20130620121632.1bp1a0GdvaM0OJ8a1sxhwqJv79jDYhHm_yXkTR_L3mI@z> Op 20-06-13 13:55, Ingo Molnar schreef: > * Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Changes since RFC patch v1: >> - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id was a long. >> - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow >> - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called) >> Changes since RFC patch v2: >> - remove use of __mutex_lock_retval_arg, add warnings when using wrong combination of >> mutex_(,reserve_)lock/unlock. >> Changes since v1: >> - Add __always_inline to __mutex_lock_common, otherwise reservation paths can be >> triggered from normal locks, because __builtin_constant_p might evaluate to false >> for the constant 0 in that case. Tests for this have been added in the next patch. >> - Updated documentation slightly. >> Changes since v2: >> - Renamed everything to ww_mutex. (mlankhorst) >> - Added ww_acquire_ctx and ww_class. (mlankhorst) >> - Added a lot of checks for wrong api usage. (mlankhorst) >> - Documentation updates. (danvet) >> Changes since v3: >> - Small documentation fixes (robclark) >> - Memory barrier fix (danvet) >> Changes since v4: >> - Remove ww_mutex_unlock_single and ww_mutex_lock_single. >> - Rename ww_mutex_trylock_single to ww_mutex_trylock. >> - Remove separate implementations of ww_mutex_lock_slow*, normal >> functions can be used. Inline versions still exist for extra >> debugging. >> - Cleanup unneeded memory barriers, add comment to the remaining >> smp_mb(). > That's not a proper changelog. It should be a short description of what it > does, possibly referring to the new Documentation/ww-mutex-design.txt file > for more details. Well they've helped me with some of the changes and contributed some code and/or fixes, but if acked-by is preferred I'll use that.. >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark > That's not a valid signoff chain: the last signoff in the chain is the > person sending me the patch. The first signoff is the person who wrote the > patch. The other two gents should be Acked-by I suspect? > I guess so.