All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, tj@kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
	parri.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:01:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58 ++++-----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
index cae331d553f8..f445bd7f2b9f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -26,58 +26,6 @@
  * The memory barriers are implicit with the load-acquire and store-release
  * instructions.
  */
-static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-	arch_spinlock_t lockval;
-	u32 owner;
-
-	/*
-	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
-	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
-	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner) << 16;
-
-	asm volatile(
-"	sevl\n"
-"1:	wfe\n"
-"2:	ldaxr	%w0, %2\n"
-	/* Is the lock free? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w0, %w0, ror #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 3f\n"
-	/* Lock taken -- has there been a subsequent unlock->lock transition? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w3, %w0, lsl #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 1b\n"
-	/*
-	 * The owner has been updated, so there was an unlock->lock
-	 * transition that we missed. That means we can rely on the
-	 * store-release of the unlock operation paired with the
-	 * load-acquire of the lock operation to publish any of our
-	 * previous stores to the new lock owner and therefore don't
-	 * need to bother with the writeback below.
-	 */
-"	b	4f\n"
-"3:\n"
-	/*
-	 * Serialise against any concurrent lockers by writing back the
-	 * unlocked lock value
-	 */
-	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
-	/* LL/SC */
-"	stxr	%w1, %w0, %2\n"
-	__nops(2),
-	/* LSE atomics */
-"	mov	%w1, %w0\n"
-"	cas	%w0, %w0, %2\n"
-"	eor	%w1, %w1, %w0\n")
-	/* Somebody else wrote to the lock, GOTO 10 and reload the value */
-"	cbnz	%w1, 2b\n"
-"4:"
-	: "=&r" (lockval), "=&r" (tmp), "+Q" (*lock)
-	: "r" (owner)
-	: "memory");
-}
 
 #define arch_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) arch_spin_lock(lock)
 
@@ -176,7 +124,11 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
 
 static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	smp_mb(); /* See arch_spin_unlock_wait */
+	/*
+	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
+	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
+	 */
+	smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
 	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(READ_ONCE(*lock));
 }
 
-- 
2.5.2

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
	dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, arnd@arndb.de,
	peterz@infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	will.deacon@arm.com, oleg@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	tj@kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:01:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58 ++++-----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
index cae331d553f8..f445bd7f2b9f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -26,58 +26,6 @@
  * The memory barriers are implicit with the load-acquire and store-release
  * instructions.
  */
-static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-	arch_spinlock_t lockval;
-	u32 owner;
-
-	/*
-	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
-	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
-	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner) << 16;
-
-	asm volatile(
-"	sevl\n"
-"1:	wfe\n"
-"2:	ldaxr	%w0, %2\n"
-	/* Is the lock free? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w0, %w0, ror #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 3f\n"
-	/* Lock taken -- has there been a subsequent unlock->lock transition? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w3, %w0, lsl #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 1b\n"
-	/*
-	 * The owner has been updated, so there was an unlock->lock
-	 * transition that we missed. That means we can rely on the
-	 * store-release of the unlock operation paired with the
-	 * load-acquire of the lock operation to publish any of our
-	 * previous stores to the new lock owner and therefore don't
-	 * need to bother with the writeback below.
-	 */
-"	b	4f\n"
-"3:\n"
-	/*
-	 * Serialise against any concurrent lockers by writing back the
-	 * unlocked lock value
-	 */
-	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
-	/* LL/SC */
-"	stxr	%w1, %w0, %2\n"
-	__nops(2),
-	/* LSE atomics */
-"	mov	%w1, %w0\n"
-"	cas	%w0, %w0, %2\n"
-"	eor	%w1, %w1, %w0\n")
-	/* Somebody else wrote to the lock, GOTO 10 and reload the value */
-"	cbnz	%w1, 2b\n"
-"4:"
-	: "=&r" (lockval), "=&r" (tmp), "+Q" (*lock)
-	: "r" (owner)
-	: "memory");
-}
 
 #define arch_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) arch_spin_lock(lock)
 
@@ -176,7 +124,11 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
 
 static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	smp_mb(); /* See arch_spin_unlock_wait */
+	/*
+	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
+	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
+	 */
+	smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
 	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(READ_ONCE(*lock));
 }
 
-- 
2.5.2

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, tj@kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
	parri.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:01:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20170630000120.0JGEW-UMoAfR2ZlyxDPF4UGGvG-qWHsf91LGSrOOnJ0@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58 ++++-----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
index cae331d553f8..f445bd7f2b9f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -26,58 +26,6 @@
  * The memory barriers are implicit with the load-acquire and store-release
  * instructions.
  */
-static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-	arch_spinlock_t lockval;
-	u32 owner;
-
-	/*
-	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
-	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
-	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner) << 16;
-
-	asm volatile(
-"	sevl\n"
-"1:	wfe\n"
-"2:	ldaxr	%w0, %2\n"
-	/* Is the lock free? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w0, %w0, ror #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 3f\n"
-	/* Lock taken -- has there been a subsequent unlock->lock transition? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w3, %w0, lsl #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 1b\n"
-	/*
-	 * The owner has been updated, so there was an unlock->lock
-	 * transition that we missed. That means we can rely on the
-	 * store-release of the unlock operation paired with the
-	 * load-acquire of the lock operation to publish any of our
-	 * previous stores to the new lock owner and therefore don't
-	 * need to bother with the writeback below.
-	 */
-"	b	4f\n"
-"3:\n"
-	/*
-	 * Serialise against any concurrent lockers by writing back the
-	 * unlocked lock value
-	 */
-	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
-	/* LL/SC */
-"	stxr	%w1, %w0, %2\n"
-	__nops(2),
-	/* LSE atomics */
-"	mov	%w1, %w0\n"
-"	cas	%w0, %w0, %2\n"
-"	eor	%w1, %w1, %w0\n")
-	/* Somebody else wrote to the lock, GOTO 10 and reload the value */
-"	cbnz	%w1, 2b\n"
-"4:"
-	: "=&r" (lockval), "=&r" (tmp), "+Q" (*lock)
-	: "r" (owner)
-	: "memory");
-}
 
 #define arch_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) arch_spin_lock(lock)
 
@@ -176,7 +124,11 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
 
 static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	smp_mb(); /* See arch_spin_unlock_wait */
+	/*
+	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
+	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
+	 */
+	smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
 	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(READ_ONCE(*lock));
 }
 
-- 
2.5.2

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:01:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58 ++++-----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
index cae331d553f8..f445bd7f2b9f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -26,58 +26,6 @@
  * The memory barriers are implicit with the load-acquire and store-release
  * instructions.
  */
-static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-	arch_spinlock_t lockval;
-	u32 owner;
-
-	/*
-	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
-	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
-	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner) << 16;
-
-	asm volatile(
-"	sevl\n"
-"1:	wfe\n"
-"2:	ldaxr	%w0, %2\n"
-	/* Is the lock free? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w0, %w0, ror #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 3f\n"
-	/* Lock taken -- has there been a subsequent unlock->lock transition? */
-"	eor	%w1, %w3, %w0, lsl #16\n"
-"	cbz	%w1, 1b\n"
-	/*
-	 * The owner has been updated, so there was an unlock->lock
-	 * transition that we missed. That means we can rely on the
-	 * store-release of the unlock operation paired with the
-	 * load-acquire of the lock operation to publish any of our
-	 * previous stores to the new lock owner and therefore don't
-	 * need to bother with the writeback below.
-	 */
-"	b	4f\n"
-"3:\n"
-	/*
-	 * Serialise against any concurrent lockers by writing back the
-	 * unlocked lock value
-	 */
-	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
-	/* LL/SC */
-"	stxr	%w1, %w0, %2\n"
-	__nops(2),
-	/* LSE atomics */
-"	mov	%w1, %w0\n"
-"	cas	%w0, %w0, %2\n"
-"	eor	%w1, %w1, %w0\n")
-	/* Somebody else wrote to the lock, GOTO 10 and reload the value */
-"	cbnz	%w1, 2b\n"
-"4:"
-	: "=&r" (lockval), "=&r" (tmp), "+Q" (*lock)
-	: "r" (owner)
-	: "memory");
-}
 
 #define arch_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) arch_spin_lock(lock)
 
@@ -176,7 +124,11 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
 
 static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
-	smp_mb(); /* See arch_spin_unlock_wait */
+	/*
+	 * Ensure prior spin_lock operations to other locks have completed
+	 * on this CPU before we test whether "lock" is locked.
+	 */
+	smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
 	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(READ_ONCE(*lock));
 }
 
-- 
2.5.2

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-06-30  0:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 211+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-29 23:59 [PATCH RFC 0/26] Remove spin_unlock_wait() Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 01/26] netfilter: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
     [not found]   ` <a6642feb-2f3a-980f-5ed6-2deb79563e6b@colorfullife.com>
2017-07-02  2:00     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 14:39     ` Alan Stern
2017-07-03 14:39       ` Alan Stern
2017-07-03 17:14       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 19:01         ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-03 19:57           ` Alan Stern
2017-07-03 19:57             ` Alan Stern
2017-07-06 18:43             ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-06 18:43               ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-06 18:43               ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-03 20:04         ` Alan Stern
2017-07-03 20:04           ` Alan Stern
2017-07-03 20:53           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 11:04   ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-06-30 12:50     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 15:20       ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-06-30 16:16         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 17:21           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 19:21           ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-06-30 19:50             ` Alan Stern
2017-06-30 19:50               ` Alan Stern
2017-06-30 20:04               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 20:02             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 20:19               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 10:31   ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-06-30 12:35     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 04/26] completion: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 05/26] exit: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 06/26] ipc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-01 19:23   ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-02  3:16     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 07/26] drivers/ata: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 08/26] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  9:19   ` Will Deacon
2017-06-30 12:38     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 13:13       ` Will Deacon
2017-06-30 22:18         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 13:15           ` Will Deacon
2017-07-03 16:18             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 16:40               ` Linus Torvalds
2017-07-03 17:13                 ` Will Deacon
2017-07-03 22:30                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 22:49                     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-07-04  0:39                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-04  0:54                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-03 21:10                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 09/26] alpha: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 10/26] arc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 11/26] arm: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2017-06-30  0:01   ` [PATCH RFC 12/26] arm64: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  9:20   ` Will Deacon
2017-06-30  9:20     ` Will Deacon
2017-06-30 17:29     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30 17:29       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 13/26] blackfin: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 14/26] hexagon: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 15/26] ia64: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 16/26] m32r: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 17/26] metag: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 18/26] mips: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 19/26] mn10300: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 20/26] parisc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 21/26] powerpc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-02  3:58   ` Boqun Feng
2017-07-05 23:57     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 22/26] s390: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 23/26] sh: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 24/26] sparc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:06   ` Linus Torvalds
2017-06-30  0:09     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:14       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:10     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-06-30  0:24       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01 ` [PATCH RFC 26/26] xtensa: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-06-30  0:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:29 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait() Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 1/9] net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core: Fix net_conntrack_lock() Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 18:45     ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-06 18:45       ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-06 18:45       ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-06 20:26       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 2/9] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 3/9] sched: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 4/9] completion: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 5/9] exit: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 6/9] ipc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 7/9] drivers/ata: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 8/9] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-05 23:31   ` [PATCH v2 9/9] arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 14:12   ` [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait() David Laight
2017-07-06 15:21     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 15:21       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 15:21       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:10         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:10         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:24         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:24           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:24           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:41           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:41             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:41             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 17:03             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:03               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:03               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:49           ` Alan Stern
2017-07-06 16:54             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:54               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 19:37               ` Alan Stern
2017-07-06 19:37                 ` Alan Stern
2017-07-06 16:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:05       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:05       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:20       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:20         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:20         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 16:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:50           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 16:50           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 17:08           ` Will Deacon
2017-07-06 17:08             ` Will Deacon
2017-07-06 17:08             ` Will Deacon
2017-07-06 17:29             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:29               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:29               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:18           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:18             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-06 17:18             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07  8:31           ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  8:31             ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  8:31             ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  8:44             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07  8:44               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07  8:44               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07 10:33               ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07 10:33                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07 10:33                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07 11:23                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07 11:23                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07 11:23                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07 14:41             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 14:41               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08  8:43               ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08  8:43                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08 11:41                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08 11:41                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 17:47             ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-07 17:47               ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-07 17:47               ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-08  8:35               ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08  8:35                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08 11:39                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08 11:39                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08 12:30                   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08 12:30                     ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-08 14:45                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08 14:45                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-08 16:21                     ` Alan Stern
2017-07-08 16:21                       ` Alan Stern
2017-07-10 17:22                       ` Manfred Spraul
2017-07-07  8:06       ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  8:06         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  8:06         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  9:32         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  9:32           ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07  9:32           ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-07 19:27   ` [PATCH v3 " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 1/9] net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core: Fix net_conntrack_lock() Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 2/9] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 3/9] sched: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 4/9] completion: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 5/9] exit: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 6/9] ipc: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 7/9] drivers/ata: " Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 8/9] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-07 19:28     ` [PATCH v3 9/9] arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1498780894-8253-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.