Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix rhashtable bit-locking for m68k

[Guenter Roeck]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

Guenter