On 03/21, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 19:30 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > To me, it would be better to kill atomic_inc_not_zero_hint() or unify > > unify it with atomic_inc_not_zero(). But this is another story. > > git is your friend. > > I suggest you read 3f9d35b9514 changelog before killing it, thanks.
Thanks Eric for your friendly suggestion. But I didn't mean we should kill this optimization. Yes, I am wondering if we can avoid inc_not_zero_hint _or_ unify with add_unless. But let me repeat, this is another story. Perhaps I misread your previous email... I understood it as if you think the patch I sent is wrong. No? If you meant that get_write_access() can predict the current value of i_writecount... how? And even if we could, why we cant/shouldnt try to optimize the generic atomic_inc_unless_negative()? So what did you actually mean? Oleg. -- 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/
