[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160524165836.GC15189@worktop.bitpit.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:58:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, hofrat@...dl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking: Annotate spin_unlock_wait() users
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:22:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> A delta but that particular libata usage is probably not needed now.
> The path was used while libata was gradually adding error handlers to
> the low level drivers. I don't think we don't have any left w/o one
> at this point. I'll verify and get rid of that usage.
OK, that would be great; I was sorta lost in there, but it looked like
if you need the spin_unlock_wait() you also need the extra barrier
thing.
If you can remove it, better still.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists