Andrea Parri <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls.
> 
> Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not?

Ummm...  In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()?

David

--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs

Reply via email to