lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [9]   [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 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 04:16:43 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I've just sent it (with updated changelog).

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 19:07    [W:0.125 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site