On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:59:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14:11AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 05:20 -0700, tip-bot for Waiman Long wrote: > > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) > > > > X86_OOSTORE was removed in v3.14, see commit 09df7c4c8097 ("x86: Remove > > CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE"). So the first test can be removed here, as it will > > always be true. Should I submit the trivial, but probably untested, > > patch to do that or do you prefer to do that yourself? > > I was completely unaware of that removal. Yeah, I'll queue patch > removing this new instance of it. > > Good to have it gone though, one little crazy less.
I've queued the below. Thanks! --- Subject: x86, locking: No more OOSTORE nonsense From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Date: Wed Jun 11 11:01:45 CEST 2014 Paul reported that X86_OOSTORE is dead, yay! Update a comment and remove a newly added reference. Reported-by: Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-6w40duqjdmo3sslxtvisu...@git.kernel.org --- arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 2 +- arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ #if defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) /* - * For either of these options x86 doesn't have a strong TSO memory + * For this option x86 doesn't have a strong TSO memory * model and we should fall back to full barriers. */ --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ #include <asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h> -#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) +#ifndef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE #define queue_write_unlock queue_write_unlock static inline void queue_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock) {
pgpxUmM65szPa.pgp
Description: PGP signature