From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [158.69.130.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9E3CA1007 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 01:35:21 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4cGlY36qDrz1Tkp ARC-Seal: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1756863320; b=b3WqYcqyyQ+RXuUmsiR1wvygmqKecBY3/dNptfQkkb5gUMnUZHKAb3nuQUf4ZLqQ4/l2 aHTobFkInRvpFKbBdzjZ4xAiu/CFnp8lRCFxMIV8X6DY4wokmHxxih9NgGKVKncsxaU91 E7m5Jm7tTBgPhX1MgyhCrX6vrgKqyGrx60oyUf1daRy/MzPqzs0ZTOvCrUFuHTr2twAcG KdVrxzrc/+dtTY8mCqPWHzKY9smpOWp8XvLCwuWoqng7/B7xA2ji4F1I1MPxNtL/TklRi snwbmhqBT2XBsdLA9J9J7kmVmXYqmYK+NkAocsGot4YLiiPzbmGYegaKei+l0hjPo3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; t=1756863320; h=DKIM-Signature:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From:From; bh=Nm/NJuOoKIwXKRRnMkxC6hBGHGl+YK+NEF6Z59tUDes=; b=kmyUWZDhvBuK/L+mNbThxSqVkM3hyrlSRj+LriWA02e89vibcwcaVA/3GgDxOAVUej02 NBogJvbqPZ6hTusd1HX3Lduar7nP7A9LZGfSFKAxb6qLM4i98rKRu5dM3Ma4nDsj0pol3 UBZ/fZM0eciXCeS9HDxBR578sciXE/wtf68vtTJt8qdlTpRfuUsmOQ23dsBtOGQKZuVY1 GZlx4S7CtQUNFI+on4qjiVpfyXvaOgYfi+kN7W4hzaOm/wCnms56g2HY7YT38wpAIlxmS MXvmJt6zUBTZEDod3tRzTA0sJD/MOnnpIFI2lL5B+FbLcdywPMS4fEG0hF+eccmMyLA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.lttng.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="::1" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4cGlY36qDrz1Tkp DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1756863320; bh=Nm/NJuOoKIwXKRRnMkxC6hBGHGl+YK+NEF6Z59tUDes=; h=To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=K/faNCsCyqsSYmU6z79wqLtYt6Y05fnv73kl1HIPQC++VqmeTF/2pS+95IucnuMyK dyDa2aaTQCRt4Ycp/s1hGvwy+yUjRG73ORk7lwRzd4qXEAAESs1aLBCjWbjvWfpDEn p8YV0f0WO2CYKEuoqhaCBQNe7EsZG+j1EfsUCrcRCuV3nhNKnbNCN4mRI3r7r55LSs GdGlRebCWy9NJPs67kw/BqpPxNwQ7MeUw9vRwc+q5c6i3g4IweeEKx2a8rufyva7Je N4vgvS2OxFX4b1FH3VDHzO3x3AQcXHBoZ64bk6MqlgJgAX01Szv5mPQBFTgSO6wQIS 8ysvlnvtAqKlg== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cGlY36qDrz1Tkp; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 21:35:19 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4cGlY24nBdz1Tkl DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4cGlY24nBdz1Tkl Received: from smtpout.efficios.com (smtpout.efficios.com [IPv6:2607:5300:400:ed00::31e5]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cGlY24nBdz1Tkl for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 21:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (199-193-172-8.cpe.axion.ca [199.193.172.8]) by smtpout.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4cGlY12CgDz7Sc; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:35:17 -0400 (EDT) To: Thobias Knudsen , =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= Cc: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org Subject: Re: URCU feature request? In-Reply-To: Organization: EfficiOS References: <3c49eadb-f310-46b2-984d-58a0c193cde9@efficios.com> <2f0dc1b4-3fcb-453c-aa42-4a1f85623300@paulmck-laptop> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:35:16 -0400 Message-ID: <87y0qwwc6j.fsf@laura> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Olivier Dion via lttng-dev Reply-To: Olivier Dion Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" On Tue, 02 Sep 2025, Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev wrote: > Yes but all read/write operations doesn't have the syntax of a function as > you used in the example here i.e. use(...). When it is a function you can > easily just change the implementation to check if it is called inside a > read section. Some reads and writes are usually done by this syntax (a = b) > and '=' cannot be overridden. > > BTW just saying that what we're talking about now is not the original > topic, but if someone has an elegant solution to this that would be > nice! I am confuse about the overall discussion here. Are we talking about static checking of RCU pointers usage or runtime checking? Is is possible to see the implementation you made so I can understand better? Thanks, Olivier -- Olivier Dion EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com