From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/urgent] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:20:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27837.1270660848@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100407171342.GF2481@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> In other cases, there will be a reference counter or a "not yet fully
> initialized" flag that can (and should) be tested.
Why would you be using rcu_access_pointer() there? Why wouldn't you be using
rcu_dereference_protected()?
Also, one other thing: Should the default versions of these functions make
some reference to 'c' to prevent compiler warnings? Should:
#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) rcu_dereference_raw(p)
for example, be:
#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
({ \
if (1 || !(c)) \
rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
})
I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's possible to envisage a situation where
someone calculates something specifically for use in 'c', which will cause an
warning from the compiler if c isn't then checked.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-07 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-07 16:26 [PATCH tip/urgent] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-07 16:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-07 16:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-04-07 17:00 ` David Howells
2010-04-07 17:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-07 17:20 ` David Howells [this message]
2010-04-07 23:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-08 16:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-08 19:04 ` David Howells
2010-04-08 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=27837.1270660848@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).