[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27310.1270659627@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:00:27 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, 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, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/urgent] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> The new rcu_access_pointer() primitive is for the case where the pointer
> is be fetch and not dereferenced. This primitive may be used without
> protection, RCU or otherwise, due to the fact that it uses ACCESS_ONCE().
> ...
> +#define rcu_access_pointer(p, c) \
NAK. This shouldn't have the conditional parameter 'c'. Given that 'c' (by
analogy to rcu_dereference_check()) is there to describe the conditions under
which it's permitted to dereference the pointer, why is that relevant here?
What is it you're proving?
David
--
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