* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-12-01 12:13:44]:
> 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).
>
But that breaks current behaviour, we should probably initialize all
of the array to -1?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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>