[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240906144849.HrQCoqvn@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 16:48:49 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.
On 2024-09-06 08:31:23 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/6/24 8:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock
> > unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it
> > disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic
> > section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed
> > that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT.
>
> Looks good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Thank you.
This is routed via your tree, right?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists