Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 10:55:24 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     neilb@suse.de, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] bit_spinlock: Prepare for split_locks
Message-ID: <YHBq3Lutxdfz6qyq@mit.edu>
References: <20210409025131.4114078-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20210409025131.4114078-4-willy@infradead.org>
 <YHBlj3AjYbQHfsc0@mit.edu>
 <20210409143555.GV2531743@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210409143555.GV2531743@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:35:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > This changes the function signature for bit_spin_lock(), if I'm
> > reading this correctly.  Hence, this is going to break git
> > bisectability; was this patch series separated out for easy of review,
> > and you were planning on collapsing things into a single patch to
> > preserve bisectability?
> 
> It's perfectly bisectable.
> 
> Before: bit_spin_lock takes two arguments
> During: bit_spin_lock takes at least two arguments, ignores all but the first two
> After: bit_spin_lock takes three arguments

Ah, got it, thanks for the clarification!

					- Ted