From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:59:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64241753-49cb-a49d-63e3-e2ef5820836d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210210161942.GA5683@alpha.franken.de>
On 10/02/21 17:19, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/mips/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/xtensa/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> which tree should this go through ? I can take it via mips-next,
> if everybody agrees.
The breakage is in the KVM tree, and the existing patch has acked-by
from the locking primitives folks. So I'll queue it there in order to
limit the range that breaks bisection.
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:59:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64241753-49cb-a49d-63e3-e2ef5820836d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210210161942.GA5683@alpha.franken.de>
On 10/02/21 17:19, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/mips/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> arch/xtensa/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> which tree should this go through ? I can take it via mips-next,
> if everybody agrees.
The breakage is in the KVM tree, and the existing patch has acked-by
from the locking primitives folks. So I'll queue it there in order to
limit the range that breaks bisection.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-11 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-10 14:45 [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h Waiman Long
2021-02-10 14:45 ` Waiman Long
2021-02-10 15:05 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-02-10 15:05 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-02-10 15:53 ` Waiman Long
2021-02-10 15:53 ` Waiman Long
2021-02-10 17:33 ` Ben Gardon
2021-02-10 17:33 ` Ben Gardon
2021-02-10 16:19 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2021-02-10 16:19 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2021-02-11 12:59 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2021-02-11 12:59 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-02-11 14:41 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2021-02-11 14:41 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2021-02-10 18:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-02-10 18:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-02-10 18:50 ` Waiman Long
2021-02-10 18:50 ` Waiman Long
2021-02-10 18:33 Paolo Bonzini
2021-02-10 18:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-02-10 18:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=64241753-49cb-a49d-63e3-e2ef5820836d@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.