[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130402162738.GG31577@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:27:38 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@...ron.com>,
Selvan Mani <smani@...ron.com>,
Sam Bradshaw <sbradshaw@...ron.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/33] generic dynamic per cpu refcounting
Reviewed-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> + v = atomic64_add_return(1 + (1ULL << PCPU_COUNT_BITS),
> + &ref->count);
> +
> + if (!(v >> PCPU_COUNT_BITS) &&
> + REF_STATUS(pcpu_count) == PCPU_REF_NONE && alloc)
> + percpu_ref_alloc(ref, pcpu_count);
This assumes that the kernel is compiled with -fno-strict-overflow.
Which we do, and this is not the only place int the kernel where we
depend on this, so while I was nervous before, I'm okay with it now.
Could we at least have a comment saying that we're depending on
-fno-strict-overflow, though?
--
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