On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:39:08PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > 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.
Yeah, I know, but I really wasn't expecting new users of this thing, it seemed like quite an exotic API with very limited users. A well..
