lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:12:12 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/13] sched: use lockdep-based checking on rcu_dereference() On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 16:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > + first = rcu_dereference_check(pid->tasks[type].first, rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(&tasklist_lock)); > if (first) > result = hlist_entry(first, struct task_struct, pids[(type)].node); > } I've seen that particular combination a few times in this patch, would it make sense to create rcu_dereference_task()? > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c > index c535cc4..ad419d9 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched.c > +++ b/kernel/sched.c > @@ -645,6 +645,11 @@ static inline int cpu_of(struct rq *rq) > #endif > } > > +#define for_each_domain_rd(p) \ > + rcu_dereference_check((p), \ > + rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \ > + lockdep_is_held(&sched_domains_mutex)) > + Would rcu_dereference_rd() not be a better name? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists