Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:11:12 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
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?
| |