[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3078b5f07e3e4dc0a3e18aa08af2c9f1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 20:26:07 +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 23:14
>
>
> On 5/3/24 17:10, David Laight wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> No, I just want to make sure that your patches will still apply. Anyway,
> it will be easier for the maintainer to merge your remaining patches if
> you can send out a new version even if they are almost the same as the
> old ones.
I don't think any changes are needed.
So the existing versions are fine.
They applied (well my copy of what I think I sent applied) and built.
So there shouldn't be any issues.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists