From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>
Cc: "Marcelo Moreira" <marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com>,
<benno.lossin@proton.me>, <ojeda@kernel.org>,
<rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>, <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
<~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: doc: Clarify safety invariants for Revocable type
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 10:31:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DA3EEUYQET6K.2MXO7RY206FOL@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2390300b-49d0-4fe5-81b5-5a9f3fd9e300@kernel.org>
On Fri May 23, 2025 at 9:19 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 5/19/25 2:26 PM, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> I'm not happy with the sentence structure, so how about:
>>
>> * `data` is valid for reads in two cases:
>> * while `is_available` is true, or
>> * while the RCU read-side lock is taken and it was acquired while `is_available` was `true`.
>
> That sounds good!
>
>> * `data` is valid for writes when `is_available` was atomically changed from `true` to `false`.
>>
>> The last one is needed in order to call `drop_in_place`.
>
> If think for this you have the same conditional, in the RCU case you can't call
> drop_in_place() immediately after is_available was altered, but have to wait for
> synchronize_rcu() to return.
Oh yeah, how about:
* `data` is valid for writes when `is_available` was atomically changed from `true to `false`
and no thread is holding an RCU read-side lock that was acquired prior to the change in
`is_available`.
---
Cheers,
Benno
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-23 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-03 14:53 [PATCH v2] rust: doc: Clarify safety invariants for Revocable type Marcelo Moreira
2025-05-09 10:10 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-17 0:03 ` Marcelo Moreira
2025-05-17 8:19 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-17 9:54 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-17 19:09 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-19 8:50 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-19 9:18 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-19 9:55 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-19 11:10 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-19 11:37 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-19 12:26 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-23 0:13 ` Marcelo Moreira
2025-05-23 8:42 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-23 8:55 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-23 11:53 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-26 2:10 ` Marcelo Moreira
2025-05-23 7:19 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-23 8:31 ` Benno Lossin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DA3EEUYQET6K.2MXO7RY206FOL@kernel.org \
--to=lossin@kernel.org \
--cc=benno.lossin@proton.me \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox