On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 05:16:46PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 4:58 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 04:28:54AM -0400, guoren@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > Changlog: > > > V11: > > > - Based on Leonardo Bras's cmpxchg_small patches v5. > > > - Based on Guo Ren's Optimize arch_spin_value_unlocked patch v3. > > > - Remove abusing alternative framework and use jump_label instead. > > > > btw, I didn't say that using alternatives was the problem, it was > > abusing the errata framework to perform feature detection that I had > > a problem with. That's not changed in v11. > I've removed errata feature detection. The only related patches are: > - riscv: qspinlock: errata: Add ERRATA_THEAD_WRITE_ONCE fixup > - riscv: qspinlock: errata: Enable qspinlock for T-HEAD processors > > Which one is your concern? Could you reply on the exact patch thread? Thx. riscv: qspinlock: errata: Enable qspinlock for T-HEAD processors Please go back and re-read the comments I left on v11 about using the errata code for feature detection. > > A stronger forward progress guarantee is not an erratum, AFAICT. > Sorry, there is no erratum of "stronger forward progress guarantee" in the V11. "riscv: qspinlock: errata: Enable qspinlock for T-HEAD processors" still uses the errata framework to detect the presence of the stronger forward progress guarantee in v11.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
