[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1438027733.25997.50.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:08:53 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support
On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 13:30 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Yes, we could change the loop to that. I was just following the same
> logic in the native code.
Well since the native code obviously doesn't involve the
threshold/clear_pending, it looks fine to me. Its just the pv version I
think should be updated.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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