From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2] Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:25:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20100330172542.GI2513@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20100319022527.GC2894@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100318133302.29754.1584.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <19192.1269889348@redhat.com> <23274.1269893706@redhat.com> <25276.1269901350@redhat.com> <26760.1269903543@redhat.com> <20100329232636.GT2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2440.1269967151@redhat.com> <20100330164912.GG2513@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1269968671.10116.17.camel@edumazet-laptop> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: David Howells , Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:46417 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752673Ab0C3RZo (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:25:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1269968671.10116.17.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 07:04:31PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mardi 30 mars 2010 =E0 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a =E9crit : > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 05:39:11PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >=20 > > > > Scrap this one -- Arnd has it covered, under the much better na= me > > > > of rcu_dereference_const(). > > >=20 > > > Not convinced of that name either. That sounds like the RCU dere= ference of > > > constant (R/O) data. > >=20 > > Which it is, as long as the lock is held. > >=20 > > But what name would you suggest? > >=20 >=20 > Maybe use 'protected' word or something like that, or 'owned', ... >=20 > rcu_dereference_protected() or rcu_dereference_owned() I do like rcu_dereference_protected() -- a bit longer than rcu_dereference_locked(), but covers the initialization and cleanup accesses that might be protected by privatization rather than by lockin= g. Other thoughts? Thanx, Paul