Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1654133

Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:45:09AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:

> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_add_not_zero(unsigned int i,
> > +
> > 	      refcount_t *r)
> > +{
> > +	return atomic_add_return(i, &r->refs) != 0;
> > +}
> 
> Maybe atomic_add_unless(&r->refs, i, 0) in order to be consistent with the below inc_not_zero implementation?

Yes, atomic_add_return() is strictly incorrect here since the add is
unconditional.

> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_sub_and_test(unsigned int i,
> > +
> > 	      refcount_t *r)
> > +{
> > +	return atomic_sub_return(i, &r->refs) == 0;
> > +}
> 
> Any reason for not using atomic_sub_and_test() here?

> > +static inline __must_check bool refcount_dec_and_test(refcount_t *r)
> > +{
> > +	return atomic_dec_return(&r->refs) == 0;
> > +}
> 
> Same here: atomic_dec_and_test()?

Both those are better because they return condition codes generated from
the operand itself.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-05-30 23:50 +0200
  RE: [PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t  implementation "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com> - 2017-05-31 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-31 13:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-06-01 16:50 +0200

csiph-web