From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755989AbYDBM6c@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755989AbYDBM6c (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:58:32 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753835AbYDBM6Z
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:58:25 -0400
Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:27726 "EHLO kernel.dk"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753046AbYDBM6Y (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:58:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:58:19 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
       Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context)
Message-ID: <20080402125819.GO12774@kernel.dk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021020280.25738@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI> <20080402072456.GI12774@kernel.dk> <20080402072846.GA16454@elte.hu> <20080402105539.GA5610@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1207133961.8514.768.camel@twins> <20080402113327.GC41073@gandalf.sssup.it> <20080402114338.GA12774@kernel.dk> <20080402123620.GH12774@kernel.dk> <20080402123639.GI12774@kernel.dk> <20080402125530.GF41073@gandalf.sssup.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080402125530.GF41073@gandalf.sssup.it>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> > Date: Wed, Apr 02, 2008 02:36:39PM +0200
> >
> > > Looks good and tests fine as well. I've applied it, on top of the
> > > hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu() fix.
> > > 
> > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commit;h=436151ad32b4a59e0d36165a7d6312545f126661
> > > 
> 
> ok, thanks.  anyway I don't think the hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu()
> is needed at this point, since the pos->next pointer is still valid
> (at least) until the next rcu_read_unlock().  am I wrong?

it isn't, but it's still clearer. so either that or a nice comment, I
just stuck with what I had already committed.

-- 
Jens Axboe