On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 18:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:09:16PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 09:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > 
> > > Right, but it's the continuing atomic_t use that concerns me...
> > 
> > Can we remove inc_not_zero and dec_and_test functionality
> > from the atomic_t macros?
> > 
> > It would require fixing all of the in tree code, and after
> > that people with out of tree code would have to switch to
> > refcount_t to make their code work again.
> 
> People will just use (atomic_add_return(-1, &refcount) == 0) instead,
> or
> any other variant along those lines.

They could, but switching the variable type to refcount_t
seems like it would be the way of least resistance.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.