Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] res_counter check usage under val

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> I get your point. Logically this lock is unnecessary.
> (And seems this patch itself is buggy..(maybe refresh miss))
> 
> BTW, I'm sorry if I misunderstand. unsigned long long (on x86-32)
> can be compared safely ? 

Oops... Indeed. 
That discourages me, that we need a spinlock for simple comparisons :(
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux