Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject:     Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences
In-Reply-To: <20180308210303.GA2897@andrea>
CC:     albert@sifive.com, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akiyks@gmail.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To:     parri.andrea@gmail.com
Message-ID: <mhng-994ef724-c752-4667-a119-8db6407464df@palmer-si-x1c4>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
>> coherent then.
>>
>> I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
>> but I haven't looked closely yet.
>
> Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
> expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
> it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
> on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
> spinlock.h"...).

I agree.  IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit a 
v2?