[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171211124738.GF26810@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:47:38 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix boot regression for s390 and remove break_lock
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:02:08AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 06:42:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > The following two patches do the following:
> >
> > 1. Fix boot breakage reported on s390 caused by a8a217c22116
> > 2. Kill off the break_lock field entirely, since it's not actually
> > that useful
> >
> > I didn't go the whole hog and remove CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK, since the
> > "do something different with locks in preemptible kernels" isn't necessarily
> > a bad idea, and PowerPC actually implements things like arch_spin_relax
> > for that.
> >
> > The first patch should go in to 4.15.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Will
> >
> > --->8
> >
> > Will Deacon (2):
> > locking/core: Fix deadlock during boot on systems with
> > GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
> > locking/core: Remove break_lock field when CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y
> >
> > include/linux/rwlock_types.h | 3 ---
> > include/linux/spinlock.h | 5 -----
> > include/linux/spinlock_types.h | 3 ---
> > kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 13 +++----------
> > 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> *ping* ... these patches haven't been picked up yet as far as I can tell.
> Peter, Ingo?
Damn, this first patch didn't appear in -rc3.
Ingo -- please can you pick this up? Without it, s390 doesn't boot with
mainline.
Thanks,
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists