[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2dd3223-bda1-be8c-fbc4-9c0eec63bc9d@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:44:22 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, idryomov@...il.com,
dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn
Cc: ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/block/rbd.c: atomic_inc_return_safe() &
atomic_dec_return_safe()
On 10/2/20 4:34 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> All,
>
> I came across these atomic_inc_return_safe() & atomic_dec_return_safe()
> functions that hold the counters at safe values.
>
> atomic_inc_return_safe()
>
> If the counter is already 0 it will not be incremented.
> If the counter is already at its maximum value returns
> -EINVAL without updating it.
>
> atomic_dec_return_safe()
>
> Decrement the counter. Return the resulting value, or -EINVAL
>
> These two routines are static and only used in rbd.c.
>
> Can these become part of atomic_t ops?
I think you just want to use refcount_t for this use case. They
have safe guards for under/overflow.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists