From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreea-Cristina Bernat Subject: [PATCH] libfs: Replace rcu_assign_pointer() with RCU_INIT_POINTER() Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:56:22 +0300 Message-ID: <20140818145622.GA14281@ada> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]:37897 "EHLO mail-lb0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762AbaHRO4c (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:56:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: robert.w.love@intel.com, JBottomley@parallels.com, fcoe-devel@open-fcoe.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com The uses of "rcu_assign_pointer()" are NULLing out the pointers. According to RCU_INIT_POINTER()'s block comment: "1. This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer" it is better to use it instead of rcu_assign_pointer() because it has a smaller overhead. The following Coccinelle semantic patch was used: @@ @@ - rcu_assign_pointer + RCU_INIT_POINTER (..., NULL) Signed-off-by: Andreea-Cristina Bernat --- drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c index 8d65a51a..c11a638 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c @@ -296,9 +296,9 @@ void fc_fc4_deregister_provider(enum fc_fh_type type, struct fc4_prov *prov) BUG_ON(type >= FC_FC4_PROV_SIZE); mutex_lock(&fc_prov_mutex); if (prov->recv) - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); else - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); mutex_unlock(&fc_prov_mutex); synchronize_rcu(); } -- 1.9.1