From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:42:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140728164223.GS19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53D67C3A.1060401@hp.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:37:14PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I am planning to take out the check in check_deadlock and only have the test
> in lock_acquire which change a 3 to 2 when in interrupt context. Now my
> question is whether to do it as a new patch on top of the existing one in
> tip or a total replacement. I also intend to use symbolic names for the read
> states for better readability as suggested by John.
Send new patches, the patches magically went away from tip.
I don't care too much about the symbolic thing, partly because the
actual value is not irrelevant seeing how we're peddling with bitfields.
Also, its an unrelated cleanup at best.
When you do re-submit extend the locking self test scenarios to cover
the new semantics as well.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-28 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-21 4:22 Linux 3.16-rc6 Linus Torvalds
2014-07-23 9:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-07-24 0:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-07-24 1:53 ` David Rientjes
2014-07-24 6:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-24 8:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-07-24 12:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-07-24 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-24 16:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-07-24 18:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-07-24 18:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-24 20:38 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-24 21:45 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-07-25 17:23 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-24 22:06 ` John Stoffel
2014-07-25 16:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 16:37 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-28 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20140728164223.GS19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
/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