On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:24:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:52:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > About spin_unlock_wait() on ppc, I actually have a fix pending review: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461130033-70898-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx Please use the normal commit quoting style: d86b8da04dfa ("arm64: spinlock: serialise spin_unlock_wait against concurrent lockers") > that patch fixed a different problem when people want to pair a > spin_unlock_wait() with a spin_lock(). Argh, indeed, and I think qspinlock is still broken there :/ But my poor brain is about to give in for the day. Let me go ponder that some :/ > I think we still need that fix, and there are two conflicts with this > series: > > 1. arch_spin_unlock_wait() code for PPC32 was deleted, and > consolidated into one. Nice. > 2. I actually downgraded spin_unlock_wait() to !ACQUIRE ;-) Fail ;-) > I can think of two ways to solve thoes conflicts: > > 1. Modify my patch to make spin_unlock_wait() an ACQUIRE, and it > can be merged in powerpc tree, and possible go into to mainline > before 4.7. Then there is no need for this series to have code > for ppc, therefore no conflict. Hardly any other unlock_wait is an acquire, everyone is 'broken' :-/ > or > > 2. I can rebase my patch on this series, and it can be added in > this series, and will go into mainline at 4.8. > > > Michael and Peter, any thought? I'm fine with it going in early, I can rebase, no problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
