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. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
