[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210211144103.GA12529@alpha.franken.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:41:03 +0100
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
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 Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
if it's not too late you can add by
Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists