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;
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20190412.173458.2194302001630174696.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     linux@roeck-us.net
Cc:     neilb@suse.com, tgraf@suug.ch, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <db89e10c-44ba-117d-2fe3-e01eb733d29a@roeck-us.net>
References: <155503371949.17793.8266195008003399968.stgit@noble.brown>
        <db89e10c-44ba-117d-2fe3-e01eb733d29a@roeck-us.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:08:41 -0700

> 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>

Series applied.