[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180309121643.GA16716@andrea>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:16:43 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc: albert@...ive.com, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akiyks@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with
fences
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
> >>coherent then.
> >>
> >>I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
> >>but I haven't looked closely yet.
> >
> >Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
> >expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
> >it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
> >on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
> >spinlock.h"...).
>
> I agree. IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit
> a v2?
I've just sent it (with updated changelog).
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists