[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110625051006.GF2266@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:10:06 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v3] rcu: Detect rcu uses under extended quiescent
state
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:18:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 01:12 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > This time I have no current practical cases to fix. Those I fixed
> > in previous versions were actually using rcu_dereference_raw(), which
> > is legal in extended qs.
> >
> > Frederic Weisbecker (3):
> > rcu: Detect illegal rcu dereference in extended quiescent state
> > rcu: Inform the user about dynticks idle mode on PROVE_RCU warning
> > rcu: Warn when rcu_read_lock() is used in extended quiescent state
> >
> > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > kernel/lockdep.c | 4 +++
> > kernel/rcupdate.c | 4 +++
> > kernel/rcutiny.c | 13 +++++++++
> > kernel/rcutree.c | 14 +++++++++
> > 5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> Right, so the only comment I have is that it might have been nice to
> explain what the heck an extended qs is :-) I've since figured it out,
> but it did require waking up my brain.
Good point -- I updated the commit logs to (hopefully) make this
more clear.
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