Op 20-06-13 13:55, Ingo Molnar schreef:
> * Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> Changes since RFC patch v1:
>> - Updated to use atomic_long instead of atomic, since the reservation_id
>> was a long.
>> - added mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow
>> - removed mutex_locked_set_reservation_id (or w/e it was called)
>> Changes since RFC patch v2:
>> - remove use of __mutex_lock_retval_arg, add warnings when using wrong
>> combination of
>> mutex_(,reserve_)lock/unlock.
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Add __always_inline to __mutex_lock_common, otherwise reservation paths
>> can be
>> triggered from normal locks, because __builtin_constant_p might evaluate
>> to false
>> for the constant 0 in that case. Tests for this have been added in the
>> next patch.
>> - Updated documentation slightly.
>> Changes since v2:
>> - Renamed everything to ww_mutex. (mlankhorst)
>> - Added ww_acquire_ctx and ww_class. (mlankhorst)
>> - Added a lot of checks for wrong api usage. (mlankhorst)
>> - Documentation updates. (danvet)
>> Changes since v3:
>> - Small documentation fixes (robclark)
>> - Memory barrier fix (danvet)
>> Changes since v4:
>> - Remove ww_mutex_unlock_single and ww_mutex_lock_single.
>> - Rename ww_mutex_trylock_single to ww_mutex_trylock.
>> - Remove separate implementations of ww_mutex_lock_slow*, normal
>> functions can be used. Inline versions still exist for extra
>> debugging.
>> - Cleanup unneeded memory barriers, add comment to the remaining
>> smp_mb().
> That's not a proper changelog. It should be a short description of what it
> does, possibly referring to the new Documentation/ww-mutex-design.txt file
> for more details.
Well they've helped me with some of the changes and contributed some code
and/or fixes, but if acked-by is preferred I'll use that..
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@canonical.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com>
> That's not a valid signoff chain: the last signoff in the chain is the
> person sending me the patch. The first signoff is the person who wrote the
> patch. The other two gents should be Acked-by I suspect?
>
I guess so.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
