[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170221163252.GO6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:32:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] fs, xfs: convert xfs_buf_log_item.bli_refcount from
atomic_t to refcount_t
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 05:27:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > True, but in some of this cases WARN might be ok, I think? As soon as
> > functionality is not changed and object is not reused (by doing
> > refcount_inc on it) anywhere later on.
>
> No, your conversion should not generate spurious WARN()s.
>
> And also no, atomic_dec() must not hit 0. If you've been _that_ careful
refcount_dec() obviously, atomic_dec() doesn't care one way or the
other.
> with your reference counting and you absolutely _know_ this is the very
> last one, write something like:
>
> WARN_ON(!refcount_dec_if_one());
>
>
> Please, stop sending out conversions that haven't been tested. And take
> the time to actually look at your own patches. If I can spot fail just
> looking through them, so can you (or any of the other many people in
> your SoB chain).
>
> Take a little more time and a little extra care.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists