From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] res_counter check usage under val
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:09:06 +0400
Message-ID: <488FCD42.4090309@openvz.org>
References: <4884CA4F.9060003@openvz.org>
	<20080718193123.cf74b574.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20080718193530.578fb1e3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<26133366.1217233738316.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <26133366.1217233738316.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org
Cc: yamamoto-jCdQPDEk3idL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, nishimura-YQH0OdQVrdy45+QrQBaojngSJqDPrsil@public.gmane.org, containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org
List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org

> I get your point. Logically this lock is unnecessary.
> (And seems this patch itself is buggy..(maybe refresh miss))
> 
> BTW, I'm sorry if I misunderstand. unsigned long long (on x86-32)
> can be compared safely ? 

Oops... Indeed. 
That discourages me, that we need a spinlock for simple comparisons :(