Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:15:59 +0100
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Spelvin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel J Blueman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@xxxxxxxxx>, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@xxxxxx>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@xxxxxx>, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@xxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <53063D4A.9010601@hp.com>
List-id: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:37:14PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Yes, that is true for paravirt, but I was talking about virtualization in
> general.

Them we really don't care about :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

References:
- [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Waiman Long
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Waiman Long
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Waiman Long
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Waiman Long
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
  - From: Waiman Long

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Kernel] [Kernel Newbies] [x86 Platform Driver] [Netdev] [Linux Wireless] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Linux Filesystems] [Yosemite Discussion] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper]