From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:13:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock In-Reply-To: <20171009124921.wtbzvqagges44brq@yury-thinkpad> References: <1507296882-18721-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <20171008213052.ojyxpr56d2ypscjy@yury-thinkpad> <20171009095935.GC5127@arm.com> <20171009124921.wtbzvqagges44brq@yury-thinkpad> Message-ID: <20171009131314.GA28164@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 in qrwlock > > > and > > > [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include 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 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