On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:45:20PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > Does the below address things sufficiently clear?
>
> Yep.
Thanks!
> > +wait_queue_head_t *__var_waitqueue(void *p)
> > +{
> > + if (BITS_PER_LONG == 64) {
> > + unsigned long q = (unsigned long)p;
> > +
> > + return bit_waitqueue((void *)(q & ~1), q & 1);
> > + }
> > + return bit_waitqueue(p, 0);
> > +}
>
> You might be better off not using bit_waitqueue() but rather do the
> calculation directly since you don't actually have a bit number.
Yes, I did that in patch 11. The initial version uses the exact same
stuff wait_on_atomic_t() uses to avoid spurious changes.
