[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aLWITwwDg06F1eXu@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 12:49:35 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mark.rutland@....com,
harisokn@...zon.com, cl@...two.org, ast@...nel.org,
memxor@...il.com, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com,
xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com, joao.m.martins@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_*_timewait()
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 01:07:30AM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Ankur Arora (5):
> asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait()
> arm64: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait()
> arm64: rqspinlock: Remove private copy of
> smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait
> asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait()
> rqspinlock: use smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait()
Can you have a go at poll_idle() to see how it would look like using
this API? It doesn't necessarily mean we have to merge them all at once
but it gives us a better idea of the suitability of the interface.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists