[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2c35933c3de481faec0b201ab1a0c16@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 21:10:53 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Waiman Long' <longman@...hat.com>, "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "'peterz@...radead.org'"
<peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "'mingo@...hat.com'" <mingo@...hat.com>, "'will@...nel.org'"
<will@...nel.org>, "'boqun.feng@...il.com'" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "'Linus
Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, 'Zeng Heng'
<zengheng4@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and
per_cpu_ptr().
From: Waiman Long
> Sent: 03 May 2024 17:00
...
> David,
>
> Could you respin the series based on the latest upstream code?
I've just reapplied the patches to 'master' and they all apply
cleanly and diffing the new patches to the old ones gives no differences.
So I think they should still apply.
Were you seeing a specific problem?
I don't remember any suggested changed either.
(Apart from a very local variable I used to keep a patch isolated.)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists