From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2E2F172BA9; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726510706; cv=none; b=mIYnmrQJXmRw1ajwTePgKEEv906yDMj+wYyYYTcIeLEFnENIW8sNhMS0QZxRFelt4b+cBuIf2qpj0S+sPBYQBNTFECig4LaIsFmiAk6u7vGdPGVNed0spr1QhR7/8l1O14pxp8Tp6JeVmIBGzsoOQmI2t53zFeYA7xBzM/uDAvc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726510706; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xaEoZ3CYNprlKmLfLiCt//14ZkCN0OXDW4GXr+mON3w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uF693sjMtl+yTHNROP6kMF6Ke9CwUdaUStip9nka3bAtnS64wuyF1+K60KIL2H5ipbTBpDmmob2Kiv8aac0sHRl3MxgpLQFHsMFGpgaoLMApH7B1Z+dVqZ/rWys9t/YUN/OWTRRCCFSmVHnYprKPxS4N4uo0QlsvymE/swWnAVE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=qFXl2F/5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="qFXl2F/5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=KU1yM8DVM8wX9QSGYYRoSr68iddFXvJxEb2ckeWkU8M=; b=qFXl2F/5scIuOsVdpRBQY3SFNn vFe/6lceo8Ea2OIjH1B48dNbwvLG1iFnN0AAer5LEoQRabpT/7PNo1xW3AICwdaPctDssbHz67p5F 4fip2Vx1vzLmqxOpqBJcM37+8jt2TIxg2ZnzP5udgAlUXj5IsKjhowJREJZtL1ERDwy2akAEBZPsd H7p2dkCAvDl9Crhi3s082RK3TWM9qKv6f5ayHoSg5U+D4aPEetvNPsH4cDwXOO0ExOcSShTb1++t/ q3bfkKlgEzN/nJG8gdleK3IDbPW0vVs/sKOGv4vRKwdH5JyfVQBvZV7q1Nm38fP4wuG5vWRADkdAb rFJ8pLpA==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sqGIj-00000002FH5-2SPE; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:18:18 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9DD8300777; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 20:18:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 20:18:17 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: NeilBrown Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched: change wake_up_bit() and related function to expect unsigned long * Message-ID: <20240916181817.GF4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <> <20240916112810.GY4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <172648729127.17050.15543415823867299910@noble.neil.brown.name> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <172648729127.17050.15543415823867299910@noble.neil.brown.name> 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?