[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1267840669.10871.1790.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:57:49 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] ftrace: replace
read_barrier_depends() with rcu_dereference_raw()
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:45 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
> > ({ \
> > if (!__builtin_constant_p(v) || \
> > ((v) != NULL)) \
> > smp_wmb(); \
> > (p) = (v); \
> > })
> >
> > My question is, why that crazy if? The only time that will fail is if we
> > are assigning the constant NULL to p. What makes NULL so important here?
> > Can't there be a case when assigning NULL to p will require that wmb()?
>
> The barrier ensures that the reader can't see the new p and the old
> *p. Since you can't look at *NULL, that concern doesn't apply.
Thanks for the explanation.
Question 2)
Then why the !__builtin_constant_p(v)?
If v is NULL, then the same should apply even if it is not a constant?
What am I missing?
-- Steve
--
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