On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 07:53 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 28-06-13 03:32, Davidlohr Bueso schreef:
> > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 11:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...]
> >> So I tried this out yesterday, but it interacted with the Wait/Wound
> >> patches in tip:core/mutexes.
> >>
> >> Maarte
Op 28-06-13 03:32, Davidlohr Bueso schreef:
> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 11:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [...]
>> So I tried this out yesterday, but it interacted with the Wait/Wound
>> patches in tip:core/mutexes.
>>
>> Maarten Lankhorst pointed out that if this patch is applied on top of the
>> WW
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 11:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
>
> So I tried this out yesterday, but it interacted with the Wait/Wound
> patches in tip:core/mutexes.
>
> Maarten Lankhorst pointed out that if this patch is applied on top of the
> WW patches as-is, then we get this semantic merge c
* Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock
> by checking if it is already unlocked. If we are lucky enough that this
> is the case, then we don't need to deal with any waiter related logic.
>
> Furthermore any ch
ping, Ingo?
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:12 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ping?
>
> On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 16:59 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso
> >
> > Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock
> > by checking if it is already unlocked. If we a
ping?
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 16:59 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock
> by checking if it is already unlocked. If we are lucky enough that this
> is the case, then we don't need to deal with any waiter r
6 matches
Mail list logo
