refcount_inc(9)

📦 version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

💅 refcount_inc — bestie, we're incrementing a refcount

okay so first things first, this is a page from the Kernel API Manual (yes, the kernel has a whole manual, she's fancy like that ✨), and today's main character is refcount_inc.

🎀 NAME 🎀

refcount_inc — increment a refcount. that's it. that's the vibe. 💖

✨ SYNOPSIS ✨

void refcount_inc (refcount_t *r );

like literally that's the whole signature, she's compact and she knows it 🫶

🌸 ARGUMENTS 🌸

  • r — the refcount to increment 💅 this is the girl you're bumping up, no cap

🦋 DESCRIPTION 🦋

okay so picture atomic_inc, right? refcount_inc is giving similar energy, but she's got boundaries. instead of just going up forever, she will saturate at REFCOUNT_SATURATED and hit you with a WARN. yeah. she will literally warn you. consider that your vibe check failing 🔥

she provides no memory ordering — none, zero, nada. the assumption is that the caller already has a reference on the object, so like, you already had the key to the group chat, this isn't the moment we're doing barriers, bestie 🧚

and the big one, the thing you do NOT wanna ignore: she will WARN if the refcount is 0, because a count of zero represents a possible use-after-free condition. that's the scary one 😭 that's the "oh no bestie what did we do" moment. 0 means the object may already be gone, and touching it is giving "walking into a room after the party ended" energy 💀 so fr fr, don't be that person.

👑 SEE ALSO 👑

okay so there's a whole friend group here, all hanging out in the kernel file ./include/linux/refcount.h 🍓 go say hi to:

like literally the whole squad, iykyk 🌈

ngl this one's short but she's important. saturating, warning, no memory ordering, and a very loud "please don't call me on a zero" 🩷

and that's the page!! brought to you by the good people at ./include/linux, dated October 2026 ⭐ mwah, go forth and increment responsibly 💜💅

📦 where this page comes from