On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:57:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:22:27AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > + atomic_t                ki_refcnt;
> > 
> > Should this be a refcount_t instead?  At first glance your usage seems
> > compatible with refcount_t.
> 
> I though the magic 0 meaning would be incompatible with a refcnt_t.
> I'll investigate and respin if it ends up being ok.

Seems like a recount_t works fine, even with CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL,
so I'll switch it over for the next version.

Reply via email to