From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fix for v4.10-rc6 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:00:58 +0000 Message-ID: <18628.1485943258@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20170131165537.GC23970@htj.duckdns.org> <17591.1485935811@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-ID: <18627.1485943258.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , dougmill@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > The return value isn't the value of the atomic variable. > > The return value is whether the increment happened or not (ie the "was it not zero and > could be incremented" part?) Okay, fair enough. I was thinking of it as atomic_long_inc_return() - which obviously it isn't. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17478 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751847AbdBAKBJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:01:09 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20170131165537.GC23970@htj.duckdns.org> <17591.1485935811@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fix for v4.10-rc6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18627.1485943258.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:00:58 +0000 Message-ID: <18628.1485943258@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , dougmill@linux.vnet.ibm.com Message-ID: <20170201100058._ck-WhpZUxXpO-avWlMGd5C11NKw06Xqk3bMxRIzXlg@z> Linus Torvalds wrote: > The return value isn't the value of the atomic variable. > > The return value is whether the increment happened or not (ie the "was it not zero and > could be incremented" part?) Okay, fair enough. I was thinking of it as atomic_long_inc_return() - which obviously it isn't. David