From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:14:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20170811091434.h6mkuuw3zcgkzg26@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170811144352.585085e2@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20170811045453.GB3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170811045453.GB3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock.
> 
> Peter, any objections to that approach?  Other suggestions?

Hurm.. I'll have to try and understand that comment there again it
seems.