From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: Introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave() Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:07:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20180504160726.ikotgmd5fbix7b6b@linutronix.de> References: <20180504154533.8833-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20180504155446.GP12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180504155446.GP12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar , linux-mm@kvack.org, Shaohua Li , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2018-05-04 17:54:46 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 05:45:28PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > This series introduces atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave() and converts a few > > users to use it. They were using local_irq_save() + > > atomic_dec_and_lock() before that series. > > Should not all these users be converted to refcount_t, and thus, should > we not introduce refcount_dec_and_lock_irqsave() instead? do you intend to kill refcount_dec_and_lock() in the longterm? I haz this but instead we do - atomic_dec_and_lock() -> refcount_dec_and_lock() - add refcount_dec_and_lock_irqsave() - patch 2+ use refcount_dec_and_lock_irqsave(). Sebastian