From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753507AbcKRSyA (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:54:00 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:46652 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753003AbcKRSx6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:53:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:53:51 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Reshetova, Elena" Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "dave@progbits.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t Message-ID: <20161118185351.GW3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20161114173946.501528675@infradead.org> <20161114174446.832175072@infradead.org> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C14924@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20161118105206.GM3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C14B3B@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C14B3B@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:58:52PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Could you please fix you mailer to not unwrap the emails? > > I wish I understand what you mean by "unwrap"... ? Where I always have lines wrapped at 78 characters, but often when I see them back in your reply, they're unwrapped and go on forever. For some reason your mailer reflows text and mucks with whitespace. I know Outlook likes to do this by default. > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:47:40AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Oh, and if we define refcount_t to be just atomic_t underneath, what > > about the other atomic_long_t, local_t and atomic64_t cases when it is > > used for recounting? I don't feel good just simply changing them to > > become atomic_t under refcount_t wrapper..... > > > Is there anybody using local_t ? That seems 'creative' and highly questionable. > I am not yet sure about refcounts, but local_t itself is used in couple of places. Sure, there's local_t usage, but I'd be very surprised if there's a single refcount usage among them. > >As for atomic_long_t there's very few, I'd leave them be for now, > Ok, I have started a list on them to keep track, but we need to do > them also. There is no reason for them not to be refcounts, since so > far the ones I see are classical refcounts. Well, if you get to tools (cocci script or whatever) to reliably work fork atomic_t, then converting the few atomic_long_t's later should be trivial.