On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > if (!info) {
> > - int seq = get_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum)++;
> > - put_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum);
> > + int seq = this_cpu_inc_return(taskstats_seqnum);
>
> Hmmm, wouldn't seq now always be one more than before?
>
> I think that "seq = get_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum)++" first assigns
> taskstats_seqnum to seq and then increases the value in contrast to
> this_cpu_inc_return() that returns the already increased value, correct?
Correct. We need to subtract one from that (which will eliminate the minus
-1 that the inline this_cpu_inc_return creates).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>