[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf9Oj5DsGveN32i0A2TqudS+DXfhJYUOzSMJ6VD_A+2Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:47:16 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
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>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking/qspinlock: Break qspinlock_types.h header loop
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:00 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:04:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:35 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/29/20 8:28 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > This patch series looks good to me. I just wonder if we should also move
> > > ATOMIC64_INIT() to types.h for symmetry purpose. Anyway,
> >
> > Same question here.
>
> Yes I almost started doing it but at least one architecture (arc)
> had a custom atomic64_t so I kept it out just to be on the safe
> side.
We may ask Synopsys folks to look at this as well.
Vineet, any ideas if we may unify ATOMIC64_INIT() across the architectures?
> We certainly could do this as a follow-up patch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists