On 2024-09-06 08:31:23 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote: > On 9/6/24 8:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock > > unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it > > disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic > > section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed > > that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT. > > Looks good to me: > > Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> Thank you. This is routed via your tree, right? Sebastian
