From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific
 definitions
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:09:56 -0700
Message-ID: <20170630000956.GI2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFxf=4+LEk6wSE3HPFdwSf_F0Ny9NRGXaA6daikY+TGbDg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxf=4+LEk6wSE3HPFdwSf_F0Ny9NRGXaA6daikY+TGbDg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:06:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
> > arch_spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture.
> 
> Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in
> "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're
> done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message
> instead of just one doesn't help anybody.

Apologies, I will merge them.

							Thanx, Paul