[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YB0WzBnLd+OcpxEE@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:58:36 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, peterz@...radead.org, keescook@...omium.org,
rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] seqnum_ops: Introduce Sequence Number Ops
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:11:57AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> +static inline u32 seqnum32_inc(struct seqnum32 *seq)
> +{
> + atomic_t val = ATOMIC_INIT(seq->seqnum);
> +
> + seq->seqnum = (u32) atomic_inc_return(&val);
> + if (seq->seqnum >= UINT_MAX)
> + pr_info("Sequence Number overflow %u detected\n",
> + seq->seqnum);
> + return seq->seqnum;
As Peter points out, this is doing doing what you think it is doing :(
Why do you not just have seq->seqnum be a real atomic variable? Trying
to switch to/from one like this does not work as there is no
"atomic-ness" happening here at all.
Oh, and checkpatch should have complained about the extra ' ' in your
cast :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists