From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:37:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20071030153704.GB8285@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20071029210618.GA4200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47273A5C.7040909@trash.net> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rusty@au1.ibm.com, zhaojingmin@users.sourceforge.net, davem@davemloft.net To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:51836 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754054AbXJ3PhV (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:37:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47273A5C.7040909@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >Hello! > > > >While reviewing rcu_dereference() uses, I came across a number of cases > >where I couldn't see how the rcu_dereference() helped. One class of > >cases is where the variable is never subsequently dereferenced, so that > >patches like the following one would be appropriate. > > > >So, what am I missing here? > > Nothing, it was mainly intended as documentation that the hooks are > protected by RCU. I agree that its probably more confusing this way > since we're not even in a rcu_read_lock protected section. > > I've queued a patch to remove them all. Thank you!!! Thanx, Paul