From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sven@narfation.org>
From: Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: batman-adv: Use built-in RCU list checking
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 16:35:54 +0100
Message-ID: <1634394.jP7ydfi60B@sven-edge>
In-Reply-To: <20200216153324.GA4542@madhuparna-HP-Notebook>
References: <20200216144718.2841-1-madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>
 <3655191.udZcvKk8tv@sven-edge> <20200216153324.GA4542@madhuparna-HP-Notebook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2119546.QtC4LbVagd";
 micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
 <b.a.t.m.a.n.lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/options/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
 <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.open-mesh.org/pipermail/b.a.t.m.a.n/>
List-Post: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
 <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>
Cc: mareklindner@neomailbox.ch, sw@simonwunderlich.de, a@unstable.cc, davem@davemloft.net, b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, frextrite@gmail.com, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org

--nextPart2119546.QtC4LbVagd
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sunday, 16 February 2020 16:33:24 CET Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote:
[...]
> > Can you tell us how you've identified these four hlist_for_each_entry_rcu?
>
> The other hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() are used under the protection of
> rcu_read_lock(). We only need to pass the cond when
> hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() is used under a
> different lock (not under rcu_red_lock()) because according to the current scheme a lockdep splat
> is generated when hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() is used outside of
> rcu_read_lock() or the lockdep condition (the cond argument) evaluates
> to false. So, we need to pass this cond when it is used under the
> protection of spinlock or mutex etc. and not required if rcu_read_lock()
> is used.

I understand this part. I was asking how you've identified them. Did you use 
any tool for that? coccinelle, sparse, ...

Kind regards,
	Sven

--nextPart2119546.QtC4LbVagd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=AU3U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2119546.QtC4LbVagd--