[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140605112035.GA27384@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:20:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking tree changes for v3.16
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> Not unexpected the breakage comes from:
>
> 5627b9d439cc4dfaab738b8c21eef10fb40733f8 is the first bad commit
> commit 5627b9d439cc4dfaab738b8c21eef10fb40733f8
> Author: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
> Date: Mon Feb 3 13:18:57 2014 +0100
>
> x86, locking: Switch x86 to qrwlock-style rwlocks and optimize it
>
> Make x86 use the fair rwlock_t.
>
> Please also split the feature-enabling and the optimization into two
> separate patches.
So a bit of an update: I've done the first part of the splitup: the
simple enablement of qrwlock-style rwlocks on x86.
But even that leaves build errors:
include/asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h:14:3: error: conflicting types for ‘arch_rwlock_t’
Which means the base patch is broken:
78e077b0c5ec locking/qrwlock: Introduce qrwlock
I've picked up the other patches (rwsem optimistic spinning and
fallout), and can apply the qwrlock patches once they are fixed and
properly split up.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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