On 9/6/24 8:48 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > 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? I can certainly take it - Minchan let me know if you have concerns. -- Jens Axboe
