KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Add an interface to check usage is below "val" > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > include/linux/res_counter.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > Index: mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39/include/linux/res_counter.h > =================================================================== > --- mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39.orig/include/linux/res_counter.h > +++ mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39/include/linux/res_counter.h > @@ -191,4 +191,17 @@ static inline int res_counter_set_limit( > return ret; > } > > +static inline int res_counter_check_under_val(struct res_counter *cnt, > + unsigned long long val) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + int ret = 0; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->flags, flags); Is this spilock protection *really* required? As far as I see from its usage it is racy itself wrt to res_counter update, so this locking looks superfluous. > + if (cnt->usage < val) > + ret = 1; > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->flags, flags); > + return ret; > +} > + > #endif > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers