* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> [2010-12-01 12:13:44]:

quoted text
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> 
> > >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > >  	if (!info) {
> > > -		int seq = get_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum)++;
> > > -		put_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum);
> > > +		int seq = this_cpu_inc_return(taskstats_seqnum);
> >
> > Hmmm, wouldn't seq now always be one more than before?
> >
> > I think that "seq = get_cpu_var(taskstats_seqnum)++" first assigns
> > taskstats_seqnum to seq and then increases the value in contrast to
> > this_cpu_inc_return() that returns the already increased value, correct?
> 
> Correct. We need to subtract one from that (which will eliminate the minus
> -1 that the inline this_cpu_inc_return creates).
>

But that breaks current behaviour, we should probably initialize all
of the array to -1? 

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/