Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:39:05 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > A wee bit like so... > + > +static inline bool refcount_sub_and_test(int i, refcount_t *r) Why would we want to expose that at all? refcount_inc() and refcount_dec_and_test() is what is required for refcounting. I know there are a few users of kref_sub() in tree, but that's all undocumented voodoo, which should not be proliferated. Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.