On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 03:17:01PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > Or better yet, just use seqcount... > > Yeah, with these changes it does look a lot like seqcount now... > I can take another stab at rewriting this using seqcount_t but one > issue that Jann was concerned about is the counter being int vs long. > seqcount_t uses unsigned, so I'm not sure how to address that if I > were to use seqcount_t. Any suggestions how to address that before I > move forward with a rewrite? So if that issue is real, it is not specific to this case. Specifically preemptible seqcount will be similarly affected. So we should probably address that in the seqcount implementation.
