[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27837.1270660848@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:20:48 +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:
> In other cases, there will be a reference counter or a "not yet fully
> initialized" flag that can (and should) be tested.
Why would you be using rcu_access_pointer() there? Why wouldn't you be using
rcu_dereference_protected()?
Also, one other thing: Should the default versions of these functions make
some reference to 'c' to prevent compiler warnings? Should:
#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) rcu_dereference_raw(p)
for example, be:
#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
({ \
if (1 || !(c)) \
rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
})
I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's possible to envisage a situation where
someone calculates something specifically for use in 'c', which will cause an
warning from the compiler if c isn't then checked.
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