[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111024120032.GB2273@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:00:32 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 31/55] rcu: Make
rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() locals be correct size
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 06:43:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > When the ->dynticks field in the rcu_dynticks structure changed to an
> > atomic_t, its size on 64-bit systems changed from 64 bits to 32 bits.
> > The local variables in rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() need to change as
> > well, hence this commit.
>
> If an atomic_t always holds 32-bits, which it appears to, then shouldn't
> this use u32 rather than unsigned int?
The atomic_t definition is "int", and I need "unsigned int" to avoid
integer overflow.
But it might make sense to make atomic_t s32, in which case I would
use u32. I don't feel very strongly about it either way, because "int"
is also defined to be 32 bits. Maybe I should put such a patch forward
later on.
Thanx, Paul
--
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