* [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation
@ 2011-01-04 8:06 Lai Jiangshan
2011-01-04 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Lai Jiangshan @ 2011-01-04 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar, Paul E. McKenney, Arnd Bergmann, Peter Zijlstra,
LKML
Add __rcu annotation to :
(struct rq)->sd
signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 5ec0615..d23b706 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ struct rq {
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
struct root_domain *rd;
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain __rcu *sd;
unsigned long cpu_power;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation
2011-01-04 8:06 [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation Lai Jiangshan
@ 2011-01-04 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 10:55 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2011-01-04 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lai Jiangshan; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Paul E. McKenney, Arnd Bergmann, LKML
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 16:06 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Add __rcu annotation to :
> (struct rq)->sd
That's a broken changelog, it's about as good as:
i++; /* increment i */
I'm really starting to detest sparse (lock annotations), it keeps adding
these annotations, but does it ever catch an actual bug?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation
2011-01-04 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2011-01-04 10:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-01-04 11:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2011-01-04 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Lai Jiangshan, Ingo Molnar, Paul E. McKenney, Arnd Bergmann, LKML
Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 11:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> I'm really starting to detest sparse (lock annotations), it keeps adding
> these annotations, but does it ever catch an actual bug?
Actually I caught at least one bug in networking (FIB code ?) thanks to
these __rcu annotations ;)
Cannot remember the exact bug, sorry ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation
2011-01-04 10:55 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2011-01-04 11:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2011-01-04 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Lai Jiangshan, Ingo Molnar, Paul E. McKenney, Arnd Bergmann, LKML
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:55 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 11:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>
> > I'm really starting to detest sparse (lock annotations), it keeps adding
> > these annotations, but does it ever catch an actual bug?
>
> Actually I caught at least one bug in networking (FIB code ?) thanks to
> these __rcu annotations ;)
>
> Cannot remember the exact bug, sorry ;)
Ah, ok.. then they're not completely pointless. Lai, can you resend with
a slightly better changelog?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-04 11:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-04 8:06 [PATCH 1/3] sched: add __rcu annotation Lai Jiangshan
2011-01-04 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 10:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-01-04 11:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox