On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 2:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Sounds good. Let me try rewriting this patch using seqcount_t and I'll work with Jann on a separate patch to change seqcount_t. Thanks for the feedback! >
