[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170630092057.GD9726@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:20:57 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, manfred@...orfullife.com,
tj@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
parri.andrea@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific
definitions
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 <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> 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 <will.deacon@....com>
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists