> 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.
Ok, I think I managed to fix it. Hope it looks better now. > > 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. I am using coccinelle to find all occurrences, but I do the changes only in semi-automated fashion. Each change needs a proper manual review anyway and often one variable usage is spread between different headers/source files, so I prefer not to go to full automation and then not being sure what I have done.
