From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20170630092057.GD9726@arm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, tj@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney 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(). > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > Cc: Catalin Marinas > Cc: Will Deacon > Cc: > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > Cc: Alan Stern > Cc: Andrea Parri > Cc: Linus Torvalds > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58 ++++----------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) I'm going to miss this code. Acked-by: Will Deacon Will