On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
> > arch_spin_unlock_wait().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> > Cc: <linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 58
> > ++++-----------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>
> I'm going to miss this code.
;-) ;-) ;-)
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
Applied, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
