On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 14:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:20:45PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:17:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 13:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:42:20PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why the move to in-line this implementation? It looks like a fairly > > > > > big > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > I agree it's not pretty. > > > > > > > I'm not beholden to v3 though if you hate it. > > > > > > I don't mind; its just that I am in a similar boat with qspinlock and > > > chose the other option. So I just figured I'd ask :-) > > > > OK. I'll go with inline and we'll see which version gets "cleaned-up" by a > > janitor first ;) > > Ok; what tree does this go in? I have this dependent series which I'd > like to get sorted and merged somewhere.
Ah sorry, I didn't realise. I was going to put it in my next (which doesn't exist yet but hopefully will early next week). I'll make a topic branch with just that commit based on rc2 or rc3? cheers
