Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 0/7] Introduce __xchg, non-atomic xchg

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:24:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 22.02.2023 18:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:35:22PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Andrzej Hajda (7):
>> > >    arch: rename all internal names __xchg to __arch_xchg
>> > >    linux/include: add non-atomic version of xchg
>> > >    arch/*/uprobes: simplify arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr
>> > >    llist: simplify __llist_del_all
>> > >    io_uring: use __xchg if possible
>> > >    qed: use __xchg if possible
>> > >    drm/i915/gt: use __xchg instead of internal helper
>> > 
>> > Nothing crazy in here I suppose, I somewhat wonder why you went through
>> > the trouble, but meh.
>> 
>> If you are asking why I have proposed this patchset, then the answer is
>> simple, 1st I've tried to find a way to move internal i915 helper to core
>> (see patch 7).
>> Then I was looking for possible other users of this helper. And apparently
>> there are many of them, patches 3-7 shows some.
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > You want me to take this through te locking tree (for the next cycle,
>> > not this one) where I normally take atomic things or does someone else
>> > want this?
>> 
>> If you could take it I will be happy.
>
> OK, I'll go queue it in tip/locking/core after -rc1. Thanks!

Is this where the series fell between the cracks, or was there some
follow-up that I missed?

I think this would still be useful. Andrzej, would you mind rebasing and
resending if there are no objections?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel