On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 10:42:31AM +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote: > Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2019年8月3日周六 上午2:38写道： > > > > On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 00:10 +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote: > > > Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@xxxxxxxxx> 于2019年8月2日周五 下午8:10写道： > > > > refcount_t is better for reference counters since its > > > > implementation can prevent overflows. > > > > So convert atomic_t ref counters to refcount_t. > > > > > > > > Also convert refcount from 0-based to 1-based. > > > > > > > > > > It seems that directly converting refcount from 0-based > > > to 1-based is infeasible. > > > I am sorry for this mistake. > > > > Just curious, why not keep it 0 based and use refcout_t ? > > > > refcount API should have the same semantics as atomic_t API .. no ? > > refcount API will warn when increase a 0 refcount. > It regards this as a use-after-free. If this causes failures then the code is not doing atomic as a refcount properly anyhow.. There are some cases where the atomic refcount is just a imprecise debugging aide. Jason
