From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:29:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20170630172943.GY2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630092057.GD9726@arm.com> Reply-To: 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: Will Deacon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170630092057.GD9726@arm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > 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 Applied, thank you! Thanx, Paul