From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: provide common cpu_relax_yield definition Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:34:22 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1479298985-191589-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1479298985-191589-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Christian Borntraeger , Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390 , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , x86@kernel.org, Will Deacon , Russell King , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Noam Camus , Nicholas Piggin , Martin Schwidefsky , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar List-ID: Am 16.11.2016 um 13:23 schrieb Christian Borntraeger: > No need to duplicate the same define everywhere. Since > the only user is stop-machine and the only provider is > s390, we can use a default implementation of cpu_relax_yield > in sched.h. > > Suggested-by: Russell King > Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger Looks good to me! Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand David