On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 04:48:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Here is what I currently have for LKMM patches:
>
> 289e1c89217d4 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for writel() example")
> ebd50e2947de9 ("tools: memory-model: Add rmw-sequences to the LKMM")
> aae0c8a50d6d3 ("Documentation: Fixed a typo in atomic_t.txt")
> 9ba7d3b3b826e ("tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependencies")
>
> Queued for the upcoming (v6.3) merge window.
>
> c7637e2a8a27 ("tools/memory-model: Update some warning labels")
> 7862199d4df2 ("tools/memory-model: Unify UNLOCK+LOCK pairings to po-unlock-lock-")
>
> Are ready for the next (v6.4) merge window. If there is some
> reason that they should instead go into v6.3, please let us
> all know.
>
> a6cd5214b5ba ("tools/memory-model: Document LKMM test procedure")
>
> This goes onto the lkmm-dev pile because it is documenting how
> to use those scripts.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y9GPVnK6lQbY6vCK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230126134604.2160-3-jonas.oberhauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230203201913.2555494-1-joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 5d871b280e7f ("tools/memory-model: Add smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock()")
>
> These need review and perhaps further adjustment.
>
> So, am I missing any? Are there any that need to be redirected?
The "Provide exact semantics for SRCU" patch should have:
Portions suggested by Boqun Feng and Jonas Oberhauser.
added at the end, together with your Reported-by: tag. With that, I
think it can be queued for 6.4.
Alan
