On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > + atomic_t ki_refcnt; Should this be a refcount_t instead? At first glance your usage seems compatible with refcount_t.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > + atomic_t ki_refcnt; Should this be a refcount_t instead? At first glance your usage seems compatible with refcount_t.
|