Linux Virtualization - Apr 2014 - [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

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/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org

You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.

I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.

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:
>
>    http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org
>
> You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
>
> I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
> moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.
Peter, I am sorry that I have focused recently on making the qspinlock 
patch works with virtualization and it is easier for me to based off on 
my patch initially. Now the PV part is almost done, I will apply them on 
top of your patch. Hopefully, I will get a new patch out sometime next week.

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 future patches.

-Longman

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:
> 
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org
> 
> You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
> 
> I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
> moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.
Uh? Did you CC also xen-devel at lists.xenproject.org on your patches Peter?
I hadn't had a chance to see or comment on them :-(

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 fashion:
>>
>>    http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org
>>
>> You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
>>
>> I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
>> moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.
> Uh? Did you CC also xen-devel at lists.xenproject.org on your patches
Peter?
> I hadn't had a chance to see or comment on them :-(
>
Peter's patch is a rewrite of my patches 1-4, there is no PV or unfair 
lock support in there.

-Longman

* Waiman Long <waiman.long at 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:
> >
> >   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org
> >
> > You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
> >
> > I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get 
> > this moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you 
> > atm.
> 
> Peter, I am sorry that I have focused recently on making the 
> qspinlock patch works with virtualization and it is easier for me to 
> based off on my patch initially. Now the PV part is almost done, I 
> will apply them on top of your patch. Hopefully, I will get a new 
> patch out sometime next week.
Note that it's not "a patch" that PeterZ posted, but a series of 7
finegrained patches, each properly documented and commented. Please 
preserve that work, build on top of it, and don't just ignore it!

Thanks,

	Ingo

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 in a gradual and readable fashion:
> > 
> >   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140310154236.038181843 at infradead.org
> > 
> > You keep on ignoring that; I'll keep on ignoring your patches.
> > 
> > I might at some point rewrite some of your pv stuff on top to get this
> > moving again, but I'm not really motivated to work with you atm.
> 
> Uh? Did you CC also xen-devel at lists.xenproject.org on your patches
Peter?
> I hadn't had a chance to see or comment on them :-(
No of course not :-)

Also as noted elsewhere, I didn't actually do any PV muck yet. I spend
the time trying to get my head around patch 1; all the while Waiman kept
piling more and more on top.

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 future patches.
OK.. that'd be great. Sorry if I sound somewhat cranky (well I am, of
course) partly this is because jet-lag and partly because I just get
grumpy from the Inbox after travel.