On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 06:53:39PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 18:54 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > There is one thing we should be aware of, that is the bug: > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/5669d5f2.5050...@caviumnetworks.com > > > > which though has been fixed by: > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151217160549.gh6...@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net > > > > but the fix is not in powerpc/next right now. As this patchset makes > > atomic_xchg_acquire a real ACQUIRE, so we will also trigger that bug if > > this series gets merged in the next branch of powerpc tree, though > > that's not the problem of this patchset. > > > > Not sure whether this is a problem for your maintence, but just think > > it's better to make you aware of this ;-) > > Yes that's pretty important thank you :) > > It's not so much that bug that's important, but the fact that I completely > forget about the acquire/release implementations. Those are used already in > mainline and so we don't want to add implementations this late in the cycle > without wider testing. >
Understood. > So I'll have to push this series until 4.6 so it can get some time in -next. > Sorry! > That's fine, thank you! Regards, Boqun
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
