Re: mmotm 2010-04-28 - RCU whinges

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:40 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> > David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 07:43:56 +0200
> > > 
> > >> Le lundi 03 mai 2010 à 07:41 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > >>
> > >>> Oops scratch that, I'll resend a correct version.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Sorry, patch _is_ fine, I had one brain collapse when re-reading it, I
> > >> thought a different mutex was in use in one of the functions.
> > > 
> > > Ok, Patrick please review, thanks.
> > 
> > Actually we don't need the rcu_dereference() calls at all since
> > registration and unregistration are protected by the mutexes.
> > 
> > I queued this patch in nf-next, the only reason why I haven't
> > submitted it yet is that I was unable to get git to cleanly export
> > only the proper set of patches meant for -next due to a few merges,
> > it insists on including 5 patches already merged upstream. If you
> > don't mind ignoring the first 5 patches in the series, I'll send a
> > pull request tonight.
> > 
> 
> 
> This will clash with upcoming RCU patches, where rcu protected pointer
> cannot be directly accessed without lockdep splats.
> 

Sorry, I meant sparse here, not lockdep.

> We will need one day or another a rcu_...(nf_conntrack_event_cb)