[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171009131314.GA28164@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:13:14 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jeremy.Linton@....com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:59:36AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:30:52AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > There were 2 preparing patches in the series:
> > > [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock
> > > and
> > > [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include <linux/atomic.h> in qspinlock_types.h
> > >
> > > 1st patch is not needed anymore because Babu Moger submitted similar patch that
> > > is already in mainline: 9ab6055f95903 ("kernel/locking: Fix compile error with
> > > qrwlock.c"). Could you revisit second patch?
> >
> > Sorry, not sure what you're asking me to do here.
>
> It removes unneeded #include <linux/atomic.h> in
> include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h. Could you or someone else take
> it upstream?
My patch implements qrwlocks, not qspinlocks, so it's a bit weird to take
this random patch in the same series. Given that Arnd acked it, I'd suggest
either sending it through him, or leaving it until I get round to looking at
qspinlock for arm64 (see my reply to Peter).
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists