On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/15, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > static inline int atomic_inc_unless_negative(atomic_t *p)
>> > {
>> > int v, v1;
>> > - for (v = 0; v >= 0; v = v1) {
>> > + for (v = atomic_read(p); v >= 0; v = v1) {
>> > v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(p, v, v + 1);
>>
>> Unfortunately, the above will exchange the current value even though
>> it is negative, so it isn't correct.
>
> Hmm, why? We always check "v >= 0" before we try to do
> atomic_cmpxchg(old => v) ?
Sorry, yes, you are right. But then your patch is basically same with the
previous one, isn't it? And has same problem, see below discussion:
http://marc.info/?t=136284366900001&r=1&w=2
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
