[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190130140707.GC2296@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:07:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
SRINIVAS <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] locking/qspinlock: Handle > 4 nesting levels
> Waiman Long (4):
> locking/qspinlock: Handle > 4 slowpath nesting levels
> locking/qspinlock_stat: Track the no MCS node available case
I've taken these two,
> locking/qspinlock_stat: Introduce a generic lockevent counting APIs
> locking/lock_events: Make lock_events available for all archs & other
> locks
while no real objection to these; I feel we should wait until there are
in fact more users of this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists