I'm not (yet) a kernel guru, so just point and laugh if I'm wrong, but... On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Dan Aloni wrote: > - if (!--de->count) { > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&de->count)) { Doesn't this reverse the sense of the test? -Jacob -- "My my, the cruelest lies are often told without a word. My my, the kindest truths are often spoke, but never heard." -Ben Folds Five, "The Last Polka" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for proc_dir_entry Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for proc_dir_e... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for proc_d... Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for pr... Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count fo... Francois romieu
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use cou... Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for proc_dir_e... Jacob Luna Lundberg
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for proc_d... Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count for pr... Jacob Luna Lundberg
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count fo... Dan Aloni
- Re: [PATCH (2.4)] atomic use count fo... Ingo Oeser