Will Deacon's on April 9, 2019 11:46 pm:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:00:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am:
>> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that
Hi Nick,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:00:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am:
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote:
> >>
> >> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
> >> it, so there is no reason to call it f
Linus Torvalds's on April 6, 2019 1:50 am:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>>
>> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
>> it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was
>> generated using coccinelle:
>>
>> @mmiowb@
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:01 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
> it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was
> generated using coccinelle:
>
> @mmiowb@
> @@
> - mmiowb();
So I love the
mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was
generated using coccinelle:
@mmiowb@
@@
- mmiowb();
and invoked as:
$ for d in drivers include/linux/qed sound; do \
spatch --inclu
5 matches
Mail list logo