On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:08:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Peter's patch is a rewrite of my patches 1-4, there is no PV or unfair lock
support in there.
Yes, because your patches were unreadable and entirely non obvious.
And while I appreciate that its not entirely your fault; the subject is
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:57:27PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
equivalent, but
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:59:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I am really sorry if you have bad feeling about it. I do not mean to
discredit you on your effort to make the qspinlock patch better. I really
appreciate your input and would like to work with you on this patch as well
as other
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:12:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:57:27PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse
On 04/07/2014 10:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:08:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Peter's patch is a rewrite of my patches 1-4, there is no PV or unfair lock
support in there.
Yes, because your patches were unreadable and entirely non obvious.
And while I appreciate
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
equivalent, but in a gradual and readable fashion:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181...@infradead.org
You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on
On 04/04/2014 09:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
equivalent, but in a gradual and readable fashion:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
equivalent, but in a gradual and readable fashion:
On 04/04/2014 12:57 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating the
equivalent, but in a gradual and readable
* Waiman Long waiman.l...@hp.com wrote:
On 04/04/2014 09:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week
trying to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series
creating the equivalent, but in a gradual and readable fashion:
* Waiman Long waiman.l...@hp.com wrote:
On 04/04/2014 12:57 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I'm just not ever going to pick up this patch; I spend a week trying
to reverse engineer this; I posted a 7 patch series creating
This patch introduces a new generic queue spinlock implementation that
can serve as an alternative to the default ticket spinlock. Compared
with the ticket spinlock, this queue spinlock should be almost as fair
as the ticket spinlock. It has about the same speed in single-thread
and it can be much
12 matches
Mail list logo
