Re: On spreading atomic_t initialization

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:29:43PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> I wrote stupid runtime checker to look for atomic_t uninitialized usage
> and the amount of screaming in logs is surprisingly very big.
> 
> So the question: is there really really an arch for which setting atomic_t
> by hand (kzalloc) is not equivalent to atomic_set()?

No.  atomic_t is 32-bit, and requires all 32 bits to be usable by the
callers.  It's kind of like NULL might not theoretically be represented
by a bit-pattern of all zeroes.  In practise, it always is.  I don't
see the value in your checker, sorry.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/