Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-09-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:30:40PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote: > On 30/08/16 10:07, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: > >> (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) > >> > >> There is no store_ex pairing with this

Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-09-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:30:40PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote: > On 30/08/16 10:07, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: > >> (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) > >> > >> There is no store_ex pairing with this

Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-31 Thread Vladimir Murzin
On 30/08/16 10:07, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: >> (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) >> >> There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and >> gave wrong hint to the cache system. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-31 Thread Vladimir Murzin
On 30/08/16 10:07, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: >> (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) >> >> There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and >> gave wrong hint to the cache system. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-30 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: > (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) > > There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and > gave wrong hint to the cache system. > > Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee

Re: [PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-30 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:31PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote: > (add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) > > There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and > gave wrong hint to the cache system. > > Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee > --- >

[PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-30 Thread Kenneth Lee
(add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and gave wrong hint to the cache system. Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee --- arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1

[PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-30 Thread Kenneth Lee
(add comment for the previous mail, sorry for the duplication) There is no store_ex pairing with this load_ex. It is not necessary and gave wrong hint to the cache system. Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee --- arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

[PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-29 Thread Kenneth Lee
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee --- arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h index c85e96d..3334c4f 100644 ---

[PATCH] [bugfix] replace unnessary ldax with common ldr

2016-08-29 Thread Kenneth Lee
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Lee --- arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h index c85e96d..3334c4f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h +++