From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F81FC43441 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DA82080D for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IbB6HkTv" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37DA82080D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728300AbeKJBn0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:43:26 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com ([209.85.167.194]:45952 "EHLO mail-oi1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727828AbeKJBn0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:43:26 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id p144-v6so1839476oic.12; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:02:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TyJT/Z1FDu6UKvFnNcnXKcjFSXHdIfhIXfpytCDOKDA=; b=IbB6HkTv8p9yr57vR0IJ0/gSy2VMOuvQrm1yfOXDc6ZBclO/thk6pcNUEZMu6WYyGh onr3i7Bw6Pot6z9kbD1EfrsA4fUrF4Sg44SpU/zwb9iP9K+MVAVJNllk4tzaJUBU+N9l 8gXZXWrOkg3WIV5s5t6Swcbb382OQU3B8jL5832VoiqThvhp1xMh+RD6CESBdtj3Zj7e hn+nzPIbls+C/o+21/Vc5VpYTm4fQfKT8Y2rRKElbZPuGhAbtUR4L5zI+c6eMzQSVCOO llyUT+Llm5aaj6PsyEXXpipp4qBcyETirEGVfCrr6ZBwzTxcD95e9nMqKzohjetB404Z 1NyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TyJT/Z1FDu6UKvFnNcnXKcjFSXHdIfhIXfpytCDOKDA=; b=OvHFtJ+G5/NPAD+ef3JAydC2ZVHZuIDgfO7lfdmXQJn8+5VheGDwWHL9nGaqzIQq/G gu9Fd+aUknUjJ76XI+Y/yqKKuFx7wGZhuOgbF7w9jcsB887fUVmpVnWzVhGIohw4DSYb exKKFlbQGybxxghe2W+pCMbMfIxfqhOCZ8TLZok1l8Mcw6PI8SBXgQAvow8iDh17qxsT r4hFzweDzZhlY04HfmG5iVF4hDSidbCBKy/FdCHoFOLONiqNwZlsk4dQNHptquCpEmJu 5NEUgIc3LzcjBTgkJaRPS3ozVHQQLHQL4o1VnNiAuAKHkmc5hldLWeYaLLP9gypf0Lxu 6KNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIJiTeIqDVNzdvDw/aWEjw0UEBoeg+UrukOoomGu5dkQ+a9hh4L ZeeOTD2G9n8QtKcR5PWLJpIcD+T0BE+OKW+u2bA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c/3H5pvrInZIPt9bNAfdVoyBgV089DJPieXeGc15Nxcu4Y3kOx58w82R/eXgZ19Y/puo6K+hYV3kH80tQ1mbc= X-Received: by 2002:a54:458c:: with SMTP id z12-v6mr5377330oib.297.1541779335394; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:02:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181104155501.14767-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20181104155501.14767-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com> From: Sven Van Asbroeck Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:02:04 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH anybus v3 0/6] Support HMS Profinet Card over Anybus To: Sven Van Asbroeck , Arnd Bergmann , Rob Herring , Linus Walleij Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arnd, Rob, Linus, Many thanks for your constructive feedback so far ! Is there anything in general about this set that would prevent it from being mainlined? Perhaps I am trying to do too much at once, dropping a patchset that is too complex to be properly reviewed? I've been thinking about reworking the host to its simplest, yet feature- complete form. Just serialize all card accesses with a single lock. Then the kernel thread, kqueue, kcache, kref etc would all disappear. The price we pay is a reduction in performance/parallelism. We could then increase parallelism at a later stage. Would that be of any help? Comments on v3 will go into v4 shortly. (Rob, I'm not sure how to address your feedback, other than to s/host/slot/g ?) Yours, Sven