From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:30:07 -0800 Message-ID: <20091106163007.GC6746@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20091104115729.GD8398@redhat.com> <20091104172542.GC6736@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200911061531.20299.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Gregory Haskins , Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, s.hetze@linux-ag.com To: Rusty Russell Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911061531.20299.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:31:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:55:42 am Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Can you ack this usage please? > > > > I thought I had done so in my paragraph above, but if you would like > > something a bit more formal... > > > > That's great guys. And yes, this is a kind of read-copy-update. And no, > there's nothing wrong with it. > > But it's still nasty to use half an API. If it were a few places I would > have open-coded it with a comment, or wrapped it. As it is, I don't think > that would be a win. So would it help to have a rcu_read_lock_workqueue() and rcu_read_unlock_workqueue() that checked nesting and whether they were actually running in the context of a workqueue item? Or did you have something else in mind? Or am I misjudging the level of sarcasm in your reply? ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org