On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 09:48:11PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:30:59PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > wake_up_bit() currently allows a "void *". While this isn't strictly a > > > > problem as the address is never dereferenced, it is inconsistent with > > > > the corresponding wait_var_event() which requires "unsigned long *" and > > > > does dereference the pointer. > > > > > > I'm having trouble parsing this. The way I read it, you're contradicting > > > yourself. Where does wait_var_event() require 'unsigned long *' ? > > > > Sorry, that is meant so as "the corresponding wait_on_bit()". > > > > > > > > > > > And code that needs to wait for a change in something other than an > > > > unsigned long would be better served by wake_up_var(). > > > > > > This, afaict the whole var thing is size invariant. It only cares about > > > the address. > > > > > > > Again - wake_up_bit(). Sorry - bits are vars were swimming around my > > brain and I didn't proof-read properly. > > > > This patch is all "bit", no "var". > > OK :-) > > Anyway, other than that the patches look fine, but given we're somewhat > in the middle of the merge window and all traveling to get into Vienna > and have a few beers, I would much prefer merging these patches after > -rc1, that okay? > Yes, that's OK. Thanks for having a look. Have fun in Vienna. NeilBrown
