* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:54:06PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:58:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > This series continues the arch atomic rework started with the smp_mb__ > > > interface cleanup. > > > > > > In this series we (mostly) reduce the atomic implementations by eliminating > > > repetition through use of CPP macros. > > > > > > A future series will use these macros to implement more atomic ops. With these > > > macros we can end up with more atomic ops while the total LoC still shrinks. > > > > > > Furthermore, rewrite the asm-generic/atomic implementations to require less and > > > provide more. > > > > > > This series is compile tested on a number of archs, but only boot tested on > > > x86_64. > > > > What's the status on this series? I'm currently fleshing out > > an extension to the atomic API that allows more flexible > > acquire/release semantics and it doesn't make sense for me to > > copy-paste a bunch of code when I could build it on top of > > this instead. > > Its in tip/locking/arch and I suppose its headed for the next > merge window. Correct, there are no known regressions with the tip:locking/arch tree so I plan to send those changes to Linus in the merge window. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
