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. ;-) Yeah, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be stricter than 'relaxed'. It's kind of like an unlock/release operation, so I think 'release' is probably the minimum requirement. David
