From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753302AbcDVGyC (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:54:02 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35783 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546AbcDVGxz (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:53:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:53:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Michal Hocko , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "David S. Miller" , Tony Luck , Andrew Morton , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Message-ID: <20160422065349.GA1135@gmail.com> References: <1460041951-22347-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1460041951-22347-11-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160413090829.GB29579@gmail.com> <20160413091625.GF14351@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160413091943.GA17858@gmail.com> <20160413102731.GA29896@gmail.com> <20160413124943.GH14351@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160420134019.GX3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160420134019.GX3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:49:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 13-04-16 12:27:31, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > I'm testing your patches today, if they are otherwise OK [...] > > > > > > got this build failure: > > > > > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h:106:2: error: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints > > > > Hmm, I have no idea why 64b didn't have problem with the asm but 32b > > complains. Anyway, the following makes both happy. I have checked the > > generated code for 64b and it hasn't changed after the patch. 32b also > > seems to be generating a proper code. My gcc asm()-foo is rather weak so > > I would feel better if somebody double checked after me. > > I completely blow at this gcc-asm constraints thing too :/ > > In any case, Ingo will you look after the rest of these patches, or do > you want me to pick up the remaining bits? Yeah, it's on my list! Thanks, Ingo