[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100513214818.GL2879@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:48:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...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, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/23] rcu: add __rcu API for later
sparse checking
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:53:07PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 02:33:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This commit defines an __rcu API, but provides only vacuous definitions
> > for it. This breaks dependencies among most of the subsequent patches,
> > allowing them to reach mainline asynchronously via whatever trees are
> > appropriate.
>
> Seems like a good plan to me.
>
> I know it's not the right time to push it but I am curious to see what,
> approximately, you expect a non-vacuous __rcu definition to look like.
> (i.e. when it's being run through sparse)
Patch 6 of this series defines the sparse magic and the rcu_dereference()
checks that do this. But yes, there are dependencies among these patches.
Thanx, Paul
> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>
> > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/compiler.h | 2 ++
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > index a5a472b..c1a62c5 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > # define __release(x) __context__(x,-1)
> > # define __cond_lock(x,c) ((c) ? ({ __acquire(x); 1; }) : 0)
> > # define __percpu __attribute__((noderef, address_space(3)))
> > +# define __rcu
> > extern void __chk_user_ptr(const volatile void __user *);
> > extern void __chk_io_ptr(const volatile void __iomem *);
> > #else
> > @@ -34,6 +35,7 @@ extern void __chk_io_ptr(const volatile void __iomem *);
> > # define __release(x) (void)0
> > # define __cond_lock(x,c) (c)
> > # define __percpu
> > +# define __rcu
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
> > --
> > 1.7.0.6
> >
> > --
> > 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/
--
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