From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933157AbcK1Ojg (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:39:36 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:45415 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932283AbcK1OjZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:39:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:39:19 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: David Miller Cc: mst@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20161123223457-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20161125.195223.1182462379062736127.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161125.195223.1182462379062736127.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16112814-0004-0000-0000-000010F5AA4A X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00006157; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000193; SDB=6.00786429; UDB=6.00380295; IPR=6.00564117; BA=6.00004920; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00013466; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2016-11-28 14:39:22 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16112814-0005-0000-0000-00007AF2E346 Message-Id: <20161128143919.GE3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-11-28_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1611280241 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200 > > > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't > > do anything unsafe though. > > > > In particular, should this use __hlist_for_each_rcu instead? > > I note that __hlist_for_each_rcu does rcu_dereference > > internally, which is missing here. > > I personally think it should use __hlist_for_each_rcu, otherwise > nothing expresses the rcu-ness of the operation. I like Dave's suggestion. Michael, does that change work for you? Thanx, Paul