Re: [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

[Ingo Molnar]

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On 04/04/2014 12:57 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
> >>to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
> >>equivalent, but in a gradual and readable fashion:
> >>
> >>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
> >>
> >>I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
> >>moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.
> >Uh? Did you CC also xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on your patches Peter?
> >I hadn't had a chance to see or comment on them :-(
> >
> 
> Peter's patch is a rewrite of my patches 1-4, there is no PV or 
> unfair lock support in there.

It is a fine grained split-up, which does one thing at a time, so it 
all becomes reviewable and mergable (and the claimed effects become 
testable!). Please use that as a base.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/