From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: parri.andrea@gmail.com (Andrea Parri)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:16:43 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with
 fences
In-Reply-To: <mhng-994ef724-c752-4667-a119-8db6407464df@palmer-si-x1c4>
References: <20180308210303.GA2897@andrea>
 <mhng-994ef724-c752-4667-a119-8db6407464df@palmer-si-x1c4>
Message-ID: <20180309121643.GA16716@andrea>
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea at gmail.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
> >>coherent then.
> >>
> >>I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
> >>but I haven't looked closely yet.
> >
> >Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
> >expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
> >it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
> >on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
> >spinlock.h"...).
> 
> I agree.  IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit
> a v2?

I've just sent it (with updated changelog).

  Andrea