Linus noticed that the variable name 'old_val' is
confusingly named in these functions - the correct
naming is 'new_val'.
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
LKML-Reference: <alpine.LFD.2.01.
0907030942260.3210@localhost.localdomain>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
*/
int atomic64_sub_and_test(u64 delta, atomic64_t *ptr)
{
- u64 old_val = atomic64_sub_return(delta, ptr);
+ u64 new_val = atomic64_sub_return(delta, ptr);
- return old_val == 0;
+ return new_val == 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub_and_test);
*/
int atomic64_add_negative(u64 delta, atomic64_t *ptr)
{
- long long old_val = atomic64_add_return(delta, ptr);
+ s64 new_val = atomic64_add_return(delta, ptr);
- return old_val < 0;
+ return new_val < 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_negative);