[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d120d5000709190717y69dca8b3tf4a17b920267806b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:17:25 -0400
From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
Hi Peter,
On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> Warn when rcu_dereference() is not used in combination with rcu_read_lock()
>
According to Paul it is fine to use RCU primitives (when accompanied
with proper comments) when the read-size critical section is guarded
by spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqsrestore() instead of
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and writers synchronize with
synchronize_sched(), not synchronize_rcu(). Your patch will trigger
warnign on such valid usages.
--
Dmitry
-
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