Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:07:19 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
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!
| |