On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:33 AM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If someone doesn't use stack_depot_evict(), and the refcount eventually > overflows, it'll do a WARN (per refcount_warn_saturate()). > > I think the interface needs to be different: > > stack_depot_get(): increments refcount (could be inline if just > wrapper around refcount_inc()) > > stack_depot_put(): what stack_depot_evict() currently does > > Then it's clear that if someone uses either stack_depot_get() or _put() > that these need to be balanced. Not using either will result in the old > behaviour of never evicting an entry. So you mean the exported interface needs to be different? And the users will need to call both stack_depot_save+stack_depot_get for saving? Hm, this seems odd. WDYT about adding a new flavor of stack_depot_save called stack_depot_save_get that would increment the refcount? And renaming stack_depot_evict to stack_depot_put. I'm not sure though if the overflow is actually an issue. Hitting that would require calling stack_depot_save INT_MAX times.
