On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06:52AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:33:47PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-26-10 at 10:15:36 UTC, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > This patch fixes two problems to make value-returning atomics and
> > > {cmp}xchg fully ordered on PPC.
> > 
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > Can you please split this into two patches. One that does the cmpxchg change
> > and one that changes PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER.
> > 
> 
> OK, make sense ;-)
> 
> > Also given how pervasive this change is I'd like to take it via the powerpc
> > next tree, so can you please send this patch (which will be two after you split
> > it) as powerpc patches. And the rest can go via tip?
> > 
> 
> One problem is that patch 5 will remove __xchg_u32 and __xchg_64
> entirely, which are modified in this patch(patch 1), so there will be
> some conflicts if two branch get merged, I think.
> 
> Alternative way is that all this series go to powerpc next tree as most
> of the dependent patches are already there. I just need to remove
> inc/dec related code and resend them when appropriate. Besides, I can
> pull patch 2 out and send it as a tip patch because it's general code
> and no one depends on this in this series.
> 
> To summerize:
> 
> patch 1(split to two), 3, 4(remove inc/dec implementation), 5, 6 sent as
> powerpc patches for powerpc next, patch 2(unmodified) sent as tip patch
> for locking/core.
> 
> Peter and Michael, this works for you both?
> 

Thoughts? ;-)

Regards,
Boqun