Peter Zijlstra
2014-Apr-04 13:00 UTC
[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.
Waiman Long
2014-Apr-04 14:59 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
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
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-Apr-04 16:57 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
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 :-(
Waiman Long
2014-Apr-04 17:08 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
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
Ingo Molnar
2014-Apr-04 17:53 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
* 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
Peter Zijlstra
2014-Apr-07 14:12 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
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.
Peter Zijlstra
2014-Apr-07 14:16 UTC
[PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
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.
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
- [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
- [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
- [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
- [PATCH v8 01/10] qspinlock: A generic 4-byte queue spinlock implementation