[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080402134123.GA12774@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:41:23 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context)
On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:58:19PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > > > From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> > > > Date: Wed, Apr 02, 2008 02:36:39PM +0200
> > > >
> > > > > Looks good and tests fine as well. I've applied it, on top of the
> > > > > hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu() fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commit;h=436151ad32b4a59e0d36165a7d6312545f126661
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ok, thanks. anyway I don't think the hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu()
> > > is needed at this point, since the pos->next pointer is still valid
> > > (at least) until the next rcu_read_unlock(). am I wrong?
> >
> > it isn't, but it's still clearer. so either that or a nice comment, I
> > just stuck with what I had already committed.
>
> Given Peter's comment, would you be willing to drop the
> hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu()? People tend to read too much into
> the "safe" sometimes. ;-)
Sure, let me rebase it... I already sent a pull request to Linus, and he
just loves when I rebase and change the diffstats behind his back :)
--
Jens Axboe
--
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