On 05.04.2024 16:47, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:24:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:On 22.02.2023 18:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:35:22PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:Andrzej Hajda (7): arch: rename all internal names __xchg to __arch_xchg linux/include: add non-atomic version of xchg arch/*/uprobes: simplify arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr llist: simplify __llist_del_all io_uring: use __xchg if possible qed: use __xchg if possible drm/i915/gt: use __xchg instead of internal helperNothing crazy in here I suppose, I somewhat wonder why you went through the trouble, but meh.If you are asking why I have proposed this patchset, then the answer is simple, 1st I've tried to find a way to move internal i915 helper to core (see patch 7). Then I was looking for possible other users of this helper. And apparently there are many of them, patches 3-7 shows some.You want me to take this through te locking tree (for the next cycle, not this one) where I normally take atomic things or does someone else want this?If you could take it I will be happy.OK, I'll go queue it in tip/locking/core after -rc1. Thanks!Is this where the series fell between the cracks, or was there some follow-up that I missed? I think this would still be useful. Andrzej, would you mind rebasing and resending if there are no objections?
The patchset was rejected/dropped by Linus at the pull-request stage.He didn't like many things, but the most __xchg name. However he was quite positive about i915 name fetch_and_zero. I can try to revive patchset with fetch_and_zero, and maybe fetch_and_set, instead of __xchg.
Regards Andrzej
BR, Jani.
|