On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 01:40:05PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 22:24 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > This is v6 of the series. > > > > Link for v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/27/798 > > Link for v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/16/527 > > Link for v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/12/368 > > Link for v4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/14/670 > > Link for v5: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/26/141 > > > > > > Changes since v5: > > > > * rebase on the next branch of powerpc. > > > > * pull two fix and one testcase patches out, which are already > > sent separately > > > > * some clean up or code format fixing. > > > > > > Paul, Peter and Will, thank you for your comments and suggestions in the > > review > > of previous versions. From this version on, This series is against the next > > branch of powerpc tree, because most of the code touch arch/powerpc/*. > > > Sorry if we already discussed this, but did we decide how we were going to > merge this? There's the one patch to generic code and then three powerpc > patches. >
We might have "discussed" this ;-) As I proposed this would go to the powerpc next in this mail: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144660021417639&w=2 Regards, Boqun > It'd make most sense for it to go via powerpc I think. Given that the change > to > generic code is relatively trivial I'll plan to merge this unless someone > objects. > > Also it is pretty late in the -next cycle for something like this. But AFAICS > there are no users of these "atomic*relaxed" variants yet other than arm64 > code > and qspinlocks, neither of which are used on powerpc. So adding them should be > pretty harmless. > > cheers >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
