> Could you please fix you mailer to not unwrap the emails? I wish I understand what you mean by "unwrap"... ?
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:47:40AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > >Provide refcount_t, an atomic_t like primitive built just for > >refcounting. It provides overflow and underflow checks as well as > >saturation semantics such that when it overflows, we'll never attempt > >to free it again, ever. > > >Peter do you have the changes to the refcount_t interface compare to > >the version in this patch? We are now starting working on atomic_t > >--> refcount_t conversions and it would save a bit of work to have > >latest version from you that we can be based upon. > > Oh, and if we define refcount_t to be just atomic_t underneath, what > about the other atomic_long_t, local_t and atomic64_t cases when it is > used for recounting? I don't feel good just simply changing them to > become atomic_t under refcount_t wrapper..... > Is there anybody using local_t ? That seems 'creative' and highly > questionable. I am not yet sure about refcounts, but local_t itself is used in couple of places. >As for atomic_long_t there's very few, I'd leave them be for now, Ok, I have started a list on them to keep track, but we need to do them also. There is no reason for them not to be refcounts, since so far the ones I see are classical refcounts. >and I couldn't find a single atomic64_t refcount user. I will check when I get over the atomic_t and atomic_long.
