Groups > linux.kernel > #1520225

Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery

From	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery
Date	2016-11-12 12:00 +0100
Message-ID	<sCEcp-VK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <spFpD-2pN-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <stC0f-1Ip-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <stC9P-1M3-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCibT-3Ek-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCilz-3Hy-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:22:02PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 
> > Once all your locking rework is assembled it might be good to have a
> > topic branch I could pull in. Both for testing and to handle conflicts
> > before it goes boom in the merge window ;-) Not necessary ofc, but I
> > think it'd be useful.
> 
> Everything except the trylock_recursive is already in tip/locking/core.
> 
> Ingo, is that all there is in that branch?

It has other bits as well - but I can create a separate topic branch for this, 
which would be c7faee2109f9 plus trylock_recursive().

Could you send a final version of trylock_recursive() patch for me to apply?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Thread

Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> - 2016-11-11 12:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-11 12:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-11-12 12:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-14 15:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-11-14 15:30 +0100

csiph-web