On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:57:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:22:27AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > 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. > > I though the magic 0 meaning would be incompatible with a refcnt_t. > I'll investigate and respin if it ends up being ok. Seems like a recount_t works fine, even with CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL, so I'll switch it over for the next version.
