[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTJUOji+B+dDbMKh@andrea>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 12:19:38 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@...ll.eu>
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David.Laight@...lab.com,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Add Zawrs support and use it for spinlocks
(Removing Heiko's @vrull address from Cc:, since it seemed to bounce, keeping
his @sntech address.)
> I had a quick look at your changes, and they look good to me.
Great. Thank you for looking them over.
> Did you agree with Palmer about testing requirements?
> I.e., do we need to run this on hardware that implements Zawrs in a
> non-trivial way?
I didn't quite discuss such specific requirements or hardware implementations,
but I agree that's a valid concern. Not that I currently have access to such
hardware; any further inputs/data will be appreciated.
> I can try to raise the priority on this here, but can't promise anything.
> For me it is also ok if you take over this patchset.
Thanks. Either way works for me. No urgency from my side. I'd say - let us
leave this up to the community/other reviewers. (IIUC, Palmer was recovering
from a certain flu and might need more time than usual to get back here.)
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists