[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64241753-49cb-a49d-63e3-e2ef5820836d@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:59:35 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h
On 10/02/21 17:19, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/mips/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/xtensa/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> which tree should this go through ? I can take it via mips-next,
> if everybody agrees.
The breakage is in the KVM tree, and the existing patch has acked-by
from the locking primitives folks. So I'll queue it there in order to
limit the range that breaks bisection.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists