Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:25:28PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only > > for > > the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation > > for that. Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants for a new > > set of apis? > > I think it may make more sense to simply convert local_t into a long, given > that most of the users will be things like stats counters. >
Yes, I agree that making local_t signed would be better. It's consistent with atomic_t, atomic64_t and atomic_long_t and it's a bit more flexible. Perhaps. A lot of applications would just be upcounters for statistics, where unsigned is desired. But I think the consistency argument wins out. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
