[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306526219.2533.3.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:56:59 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@...monizer.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
StuStaNet Vorstand <vorstand@...sta.mhn.de>,
Yann Dupont <Yann.Dupont@...v-nantes.fr>,
Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
Subject: Re: Kernel crash after using new Intel NIC (igb)
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 à 10:52 -0700, Arun Sharma a écrit :
> On 5/26/11 8:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Looks good. Thanks for taking care of this.
>
> > +static bool atomic_add_unless_return(atomic_t *ptr, int a, int u, int *newv)
> > +{
> > + int cur, old = atomic_read(ptr);
> > +
> > + while (old != u) {
> > + *newv = old + a;
> > + cur = atomic_cmpxchg(ptr, old, *newv);
> > + if (cur == old)
> > + return true;
> > + old = cur;
> > + }
> > + return false;
> > +}
>
> This looks very similar to atomic_add_unless(). If we had a
>
> __atomic_add_unless() that returned "old", we could then do:
>
> atomic_add_unless() { return __atomic_add_unless() != u }
> atomic_add_unless_return() { return __atomic_add_unless() + a}
>
Sure !
I preferred to not touch lot of files in kernel (atomic_add_unless() is
defined in several files) because its a stable candidate patch (2.6.36+)
So a cleanup patch for 2.6.40+ is certainly doable, do you want to do
this ?
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists