Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > I figured that since there were only a handful of users it wasn't a > popular API, also David very much knew of those patches changing it so > could easily have pulled in the special tip/sched/wait branch :/
I'm not sure I could, since I have to base on net-next. I'm not sure what DaveM's policy on that is. Also, it might've been better not to simply erase the atomic_t wait API immediately, but substitute wrappers for it to be removed one iteration hence. David
