On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair. This com
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
> arch_spin_unlock
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Will D
