[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416141820.GO4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:18:20 +0200
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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/16] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:32:38AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/16/2019 09:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:47PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> +#define RWSEM_COUNT_LOCKED(c) ((c) & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK)
> > The above doesn't seem to make it more readable or shorter.
>
> Fair enough. I can remove that macro.
I did the same for the HANDOFF patch but seem to have misplaced the
delta and have already refreshed the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists