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

On 05.04.2024 16:47, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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?

The patchset was rejected/dropped by Linus at the pull-request stage.
He didn't like many things, but the most __xchg name. However he was 
quite positive about i915 name fetch_and_zero.
I can try to revive patchset with fetch_and_zero, and maybe 
fetch_and_set, instead of __xchg.

Regards
Andrzej

>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>