Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190802105507.16650-1-hslester96@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190802105507.16650-1-hslester96@gmail.com>
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:46:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+FuTScLs-qJApj5Yw9OOjVk4++HSjn__Vdy+xX2V1rpWU8uLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: Use refcount_t for refcount
To:     Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:55 AM Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> refcount_t is better for reference counters since its
> implementation can prevent overflows.
> So convert atomic_t ref counters to refcount_t.
>
> Also convert refcount from 0-based to 1-based.
>
> This patch depends on PATCH 1/2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.c | 6 +++---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.c
> index 00710f43cfd2..d313d00065cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_fcoe.c
> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ int ixgbe_setup_fcoe_ddp_resources(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
>
>         fcoe->extra_ddp_buffer = buffer;
>         fcoe->extra_ddp_buffer_dma = dma;
> -       atomic_set(&fcoe->refcnt, 0);
> +       refcount_set(&fcoe->refcnt, 1);

Same point as in the cxgb4 driver patch: how can you just change the
initial value without modifying the condition for release?

This is not a suggestion to resubmit all these changes again with a
change to the release condition.