Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <155503371949.17793.8266195008003399968.stgit@noble.brown>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <db89e10c-44ba-117d-2fe3-e01eb733d29a@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:08:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <155503371949.17793.8266195008003399968.stgit@noble.brown>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 4/11/19 6:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> As reported by Guenter Roeck, the new rhashtable bit-locking
> doesn't work on m68k as it only requires 2-byte alignment, so BIT(1)
> is addresses is not unused.
> 
> We current use BIT(0) to identify a NULLS marker, but that is only
> needed in ->next pointers.  The bucket head does not need a NULLS
> marker, so the lsb there can be used for locking.
> 
> the first 4 patches make some small improvements and re-arrange some
> code.  The final patch converts to using only BIT(0) for these two
> different special purposes.
> 
> I had previously suggested dropping the series until I fix it.  Given
> that this was fairly easy, I retract that I think it best simply to
> add these patches to fix the code.
> 
For the series:

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Tested with the series applied on top of next-20190412, running all
345 qemu tests. No boot failures or new warnings observed.

Guenter