On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:58:42AM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Argh, no no no.. That whole wait_for_atomic_t thing is a giant > > > > trainwreck already and now you're making it worse still. > > Your patch description needs to say why this isn't a trainwreck when you > consider wait_for_atomic_t() to be one since it does things in a very similar > way. Yeah, still writing changelogs..
