Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint()

From: Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:39:27 -0700

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:20:44 +0100
Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 11:28 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit :
> > But we haven't established that there _is_ duplicated code which needs
> > that treatment.
> > 
> > Scanning arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h, perhaps ATOMIC_INIT() is a
> > candidate.  But I'm not sure that it _should_ be hoisted up - if every
> > architecture happens to do it the same way then that's just a fluke.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Not sure I understand you. I was trying to avoid recursive includes, but
> that should be protected anyway. I see a lot of code that could be
> factorized in this new header (atomic_inc_not_zero() for example)

Ah.  I wasn't able to see much duplicated code at all, so I wasn't sure
that we needed to bother about this issue.

yup, atomic_inc_not_zero() looks like a candidate.

> [PATCH v3] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint()

Let's go with this for now ;)

I'll assume that you intend to make use of this function soon, and it
looks safe enough to sneak it into 2.6.37-rc2, IMO.  If Linus shouts at
me then we could merge it into 2.6.38-rc1 via net-next, but I think
straight-to-mainline is best.