[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130529013111.GS6172@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:31:11 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, zhmurov@...dex-team.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: fix a race in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu
macro
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:34:53PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 13:10 +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On 28.05.2013 04:12, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > Adding a barrier() is probably what we want.
> >
> > I agree, inserting barrier() is also a correct and working fix.
>
> Yeah, but I can not find a clean way to put it inside the "for (;;)"
>
> for (barrier();;) ->
>
> error: expected expression before ‘__asm__’
>
> No user currently does :
>
> if (condition)
> hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu(tpos, pos, head, member)
>
> But who knows...
I still have my earlier question, but I suggest "({ barrier(); XXX })"
to put the barrier into the for loop, either in the second or third
clause, where XXX was the original second or third clause.
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