From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast router list manipulation Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100427.165151.171482432.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100427162530.04deb551@nehalam> <20100427.162811.233419535.davem@davemloft.net> <20100427164412.791e4999@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mirqus@gmail.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:32872 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754594Ab0D0Xvp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:51:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100427164412.791e4999@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:44:12 -0700 > Code that doesn't need rcu for traversal should not use it. > It just confuses things and implies that rcu_read_lock is held > which it is not in this code. Fair enough, I've reverted by change. This would have been helped if either the patch was split up into two pieces (one straight hlist macro conversion, another removing the RCU tag) _or_ the commit message explained why the RCU tag could be elided.