On Thursday 09 February 2006 19:54, you wrote: > @@ -1770,8 +1769,7 @@ static long cpuset_create(struct cpuset > atomic_set(&cs->count, 0); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cs->sibling); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cs->children); > - atomic_inc(&cpuset_mems_generation); > - cs->mems_generation = atomic_read(&cpuset_mems_generation); > + cs->mems_generation = atomic_inc_return(&cpuset_mems_generation); > fmeter_init(&cs->fmeter); > > cs->parent = parent; > @@ -1861,7 +1859,7 @@ int __init cpuset_init_early(void) > struct task_struct *tsk = current; > > tsk->cpuset = &top_cpuset; > - tsk->cpuset->mems_generation = atomic_read(&cpuset_mems_generation); > + tsk->cpuset->mems_generation = atomic_inc_return(&cpuset_mems_generation); > return 0; > } Is this hunk really correct? I did not look into the code, but from the patch context it seems like it adds an inc here. -- Greetings Michael.
Attachment:
pgpNRLRBqiPR2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v2 02/07] cpuset use combined atomic_inc_return calls
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH v2 02/07] cpuset use combined atomic_inc_return calls
- References:
- [PATCH v2 01/07] cpuset cleanup not not operators
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- [PATCH v2 02/07] cpuset use combined atomic_inc_return calls
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- [PATCH v2 01/07] cpuset cleanup not not operators
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] VPIDs: pid/vpid conversions
- Next by Date: Re: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed
- Previous by thread: [PATCH v2 02/07] cpuset use combined atomic_inc_return calls
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v2 02/07] cpuset use combined atomic_inc_return calls
- Index(es):
 |