Hello, On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:27:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > IIRC TJ figured it wasn't strictly required to fix the lock invertion at > that time and they sorted it differently. If I (re)read the thread > correctly the other day, he didn't have fundamental objections against > it, but wanted the simpler fix. Yeah I've got no objections to the change itself, it just wasn't needed at the time. We've had multiple issues there tho, so please keep an eye open after the changes get merged. Thanks. -- tejun
