[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjMDt8BgtIZZH8IY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 10:47:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, jonas@...thpole.se,
stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi, shorne@...il.com,
mingo@...hat.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, jszhang@...nel.org,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] RISC-V: Move to queued RW locks
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:26:00PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
>
> With the move to fair spinlocks, we might as well move to fair rwlocks.
s/might as well/can/ ?
Note that qrwlock relies on spinlock to be/provide fairness.
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists