On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:32:13PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls. > > > > Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not? > > Ummm... In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()? Hard to tell for me: your diff./changelog is all I know about fs-cache ... (and this suggests -no-, given that atomic_sub() and atomic_read() provide no ordering...); good question though. ;-) Andrea > > David -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
