On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:22:27AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + atomic_t ki_refcnt; > > Should this be a refcount_t instead? At first glance your usage seems > compatible with refcount_t.
I though the magic 0 meaning would be incompatible with a refcnt_t. I'll investigate and respin if it ends up being ok.
