* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:54:06PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:58:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > This series continues the arch atomic rework started with the smp_mb__
> > > interface cleanup.
> > >
> > > In this series we (mostly) reduce the atomic implementations by
> > > eliminating
> > > repetition through use of CPP macros.
> > >
> > > A future series will use these macros to implement more atomic ops. With
> > > these
> > > macros we can end up with more atomic ops while the total LoC still
> > > shrinks.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, rewrite the asm-generic/atomic implementations to require
> > > less and
> > > provide more.
> > >
> > > This series is compile tested on a number of archs, but only boot tested
> > > on
> > > x86_64.
> >
> > What's the status on this series? I'm currently fleshing out
> > an extension to the atomic API that allows more flexible
> > acquire/release semantics and it doesn't make sense for me to
> > copy-paste a bunch of code when I could build it on top of
> > this instead.
>
> Its in tip/locking/arch and I suppose its headed for the next
> merge window.
Correct, there are no known regressions with the tip:locking/arch
tree so I plan to send those changes to Linus in the merge
window.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
