[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg7PKm+9tv+60DTfZuu-Kh00uR8zKAGtTdUkSOXaLO1_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 11:40:41 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "longman@...hat.com" <longman@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Zeng Heng <zengheng4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 12:52, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> David Laight (5):
> Move the definition of optimistic_spin_node into osf_lock.c
> Clarify osq_wait_next()
I took these two as preparatory independent patches, with that
osq_wait_next() clarification split into two.
I also did the renaming that Waiman asked for.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists