Hello, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> No, what I mean is that why can't you do about the same mutexed >> activated inside static_key API function instead of requiring every >> user to worry about the function returning asynchronously. >> ie. synchronize inside static_key API instead of in the callers. >> > > Like this? Yeah, something like that. If keeping the inc operation a single atomic op is important for performance or whatever reasons, you can play some trick with large negative bias value while activation is going on and use atomic_add_return() to determine both whether it's the first incrementer and someone else is in the process of activating. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>