Re: Introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:21:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 
> > do you intend to kill refcount_dec_and_lock() in the longterm?
> 
> You meant to say atomic_dec_and_lock() ? Dunno if we ever get there, but
> typically dec_and_lock is fairly refcounty, but I suppose it is possible
> to have !refcount users, in which case we're eternally stuck with it.

Yes, there are - consider e.g.

void iput(struct inode *inode)
{ 
        if (!inode)
                return;
        BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR);
retry:
        if (atomic_dec_and_lock(&inode->i_count, &inode->i_lock)) {

inode->i_count sure as hell isn't refcount_t fodder...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux