Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:41:09 -0400 | From | Theodore Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 23/33] generic dynamic per cpu refcounting |
| |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:36:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > It would be nice if we had unsigned atomic types... but given that we > don't and I'm pretty sure overflow in atomic types happens all over the > place that part honestly seems fine to me... > > That said, I suppose a comment indicating that it is intentionally > overflowing is probably merited. Ted, Andrew, is this acceptable to you?
Seems reasonable to me, thanks.
- Ted
| |