[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002231359.07910.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:59:07 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: 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 0/21] v6 add lockdep-based diagnostics to rcu_dereference()
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> This patch series adds lockdep-based checking to the rcu_dereference()
> primitive in order to flag misuses of RCU.
While I haven't looked much at this series, I've been thinking about
adding static diagnostics for rcu_dereference misuse, in the form of
an __rcu address space qualifier for pointers. Such a patch would
obviously conflict with this series, so I'd wait for yours to go
in first, but maybe you like the idea enough to do it yourself ;-).
The observation is that all accesses to an RCU protected pointer
are either through rcu_dereference, rcu_assign_pointer or one of their
variants. so it should be possible to add a new address space like we
have for __iomem, __user and soon __percpu and have sparse check that
we use RCU consistently on pointers that need it.
Arnd
--
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