[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200729142813.GD2638@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:28:13 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking/qspinlock: Break qspinlock_types.h header
loop
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:28:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/07/29 15:00), peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:51:44PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 02:47:44PM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> > > >
> [..]
> > > > Anyway, the patches look sane enough, I'll go stick them in
> > > > tip/locking/core or somesuch.
> > >
> > > Perhaps add them on top of the other two patches in locking/header?
> >
> > Can do,
>
> locking/header would be better
Done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists