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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-09 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ 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 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] kernel/locking: Use struct qrwlock instead of struct __qrwlock 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 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] kernel/locking: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire when spinning in qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-08 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
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
2017-10-10 1:34 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-11 11:49 ` Will Deacon
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
2017-10-08 21:30 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock Yury Norov
2017-10-09 6:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 10:02 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-09 12:49 ` Yury Norov
2017-10-09 13:13 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-10-09 21:19 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-09 22:31 ` Jeremy Linton
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).