On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:58:52PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Could you please fix you mailer to not unwrap the emails? > > I wish I understand what you mean by "unwrap"... ?
Where I always have lines wrapped at 78 characters, but often when I see them back in your reply, they're unwrapped and go on forever. For some reason your mailer reflows text and mucks with whitespace. I know Outlook likes to do this by default. > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:47:40AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > 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. Sure, there's local_t usage, but I'd be very surprised if there's a single refcount usage among them. > >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. Well, if you get to tools (cocci script or whatever) to reliably work fork atomic_t, then converting the few atomic_long_t's later should be trivial.
