[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZC2dtI02ZIbjte2l@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:11:32 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: david@...hat.com, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
petr.pavlu@...e.com, prarit@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, song@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org,
dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
mhocko@...e.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
colin.i.king@...il.com, jim.cromie@...il.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, jbaron@...mai.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] debugfs: add debugfs_create_atomic64_t for
atomic64_t
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:04:27AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 08:26:18AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I realize why you use atomic64, but I really suspect you'd be
> > better off with just the regular "atomic_long".
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> > So something like
> >
> > debugfs_create_ulong(... &val->counter ..);
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > debugfs_create_atomic64(... &val ..);
> >
> > Hmm?
>
> We already have debugfs_create_ulong(), it just uses unsigned long
> with no atomic_long. I can just use that then.
Oh but I don't get the atomic incs, so we'd need debugfs_create_atomic_long_t().
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists