[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120119155844.GE5198@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:58:44 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] blkcg: obtaining blkg should be enclosed inside
rcu_read_lock()
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:54:45AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > No, no matter whatever synchronization scheme is in use, the code is
> > seriously screwed up if it's doing something like,
> >
> > lock();
> > a = lookup();
> > unlock();
> > return a;
> >
> > You should *NEVER* be doing that.
>
> I guess ioc_lookup_icq() is doing something similar. We call it under
> queue lock. Take rcu lock inside for sanity of radix tree and then
> release rcu lock and return icq.
Yeap, it is. We should be using rcu_dereference_check() there too.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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