From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:53:49 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable
Message-Id: <20160422065349.GA1135@gmail.com>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1460041951-22347-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <1460041951-22347-11-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20160413090829.GB29579@gmail.com>
 <20160413091625.GF14351@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20160413091943.GA17858@gmail.com>
 <20160413102731.GA29896@gmail.com>
 <20160413124943.GH14351@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20160420134019.GX3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160420134019.GX3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:49:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 13-04-16 12:27:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm testing your patches today, if they are otherwise OK [...]
> > > 
> > > got this build failure:
> > > 
> > >   ./arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h:106:2: error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints
> > 
> > Hmm, I have no idea why 64b didn't have problem with the asm but 32b
> > complains. Anyway, the following makes both happy. I have checked the
> > generated code for 64b and it hasn't changed after the patch. 32b also
> > seems to be generating a proper code. My gcc asm()-foo is rather weak so
> > I would feel better if somebody double checked after me.
> 
> I completely blow at this gcc-asm constraints thing too :/
> 
> In any case, Ingo will you look after the rest of these patches, or do
> you want me to pick up the remaining bits?

Yeah, it's on my list!

Thanks,

	Ingo