[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140312062436.GI30956@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:24:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, walken@...gle.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
riel@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:17:46PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Except that I do a single atomic short integer write to switch the bits
> instead of 2 byte write.
D'0h why didn't I think of that. A single short write is much better
than the 2 byte writes.
In any case; can you try and keep the structure in this patch-set if you
post another version? It takes a lot of effort to unravel your
all-in-one patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists