[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f04371f9-c2bd-4e66-a7a2-87042f786cb8@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:14:41 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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 12/30/23 17:39, David Laight wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds
>> Sent: 30 December 2023 19:41
>>
>> 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.
> Ok, I'll try to remove them from any respin.
> (Or at least put them first!)
The first 2 patches have been included in Linus' master branch. So you
should just remove them from a respin.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists