Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k

From: David Miller
Date: Fri Apr 12 2019 - 20:35:01 EST


From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:08:41 -0700

> On 4/11/19 6:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> As reported by Guenter Roeck, the new rhashtable bit-locking
>> doesn't work on m68k as it only requires 2-byte alignment, so BIT(1)
>> is addresses is not unused.
>> We current use BIT(0) to identify a NULLS marker, but that is only
>> needed in ->next pointers. The bucket head does not need a NULLS
>> marker, so the lsb there can be used for locking.
>> the first 4 patches make some small improvements and re-arrange some
>> code. The final patch converts to using only BIT(0) for these two
>> different special purposes.
>> I had previously suggested dropping the series until I fix it. Given
>> that this was fairly easy, I retract that I think it best simply to
>> add these patches to fix the code.
>>
> For the series:
>
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Series applied.