tree 62c8abb3a46c5a79950205f59c42c3a996df43eb
parent f4712b46a529ca2da078c82d5d99d367c7ebf82b
author NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> 1555033928 +1000
committer David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> 1555115685 -0700

rhashtable: use BIT(0) for locking.

As reported by Guenter Roeck, the new bit-locking using
BIT(1) doesn't work on the m68k architecture.  m68k only requires
2-byte alignment for words and longwords, so there is only one
unused bit in pointers to structs - We current use two, one for the
NULLS marker at the end of the linked list, and one for the bit-lock
in the head of the list.

The two uses don't need to conflict as we never need the head of the
list to be a NULLS marker - the marker is only needed to check if an
object has moved to a different table, and the bucket head cannot
move.  The NULLS marker is only needed in a ->next pointer.

As we already have different types for the bucket head pointer (struct
rhash_lock_head) and the ->next pointers (struct rhash_head), it is
fairly easy to treat the lsb differently in each.

So: Initialize buckets heads to NULL, and use the lsb for locking.
When loading the pointer from the bucket head, if it is NULL (ignoring
the lock big), report as being the expected NULLS marker.
When storing a value into a bucket head, if it is a NULLS marker,
store NULL instead.

And convert all places that used bit 1 for locking, to use bit 0.

Fixes: 8f0db018006a ("rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket.")
Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>