lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences
From
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
>> coherent then.
>>
>> I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
>> but I haven't looked closely yet.
>
> Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
> expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
> it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
> on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
> spinlock.h"...).

I agree. IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit a
v2?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 23:11    [W:0.044 / U:2.352 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site