[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100408164615.GA4836@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:46:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.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,
eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/urgent] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and
rcu_dereference_protected
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:00:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:20:48PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > 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()?
>
> Excellent question. I am writing up the documentation now, and will
> either (1) have a good use case or (2) remove the condition.
And all of the examples I could come up with that had c!=1 were contorted,
even by my standards. So you were right, and I will drop the "c" on my
next set of patches.
Thanx, Paul
--
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