[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306654424.30021.7.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 09:33:44 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>, 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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Kernel crash after using new Intel NIC (igb)
Le samedi 28 mai 2011 à 20:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > +static inline int atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u)
> > > +{
> > > + return __atomic_add_unless(v, a, u) != u;
> > > }
> > >
> > > #define atomic_inc_not_zero(v) atomic_add_unless((v), 1, 0)
> >
> > As I said, atomic_add_unless() has several implementations in
> > various arches. You must take care of all, not only x86.
>
> It's a bit sad to see local hacks to generic facilities committed
> upstream like that.
>
Again, its a stable candidate patch, on a file that had many changes in
recent kernels.
I felt this was the right thing to do, to ease stable teams work.
Its not like there is an urgent need for this atomic_add_unless_return()
thing that we have to worry right now.
--
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