[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140111181908.GA7358@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:19:08 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] rcu_dereference_check_fdtable fix/cleanups
On 01/10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > doesn't this look much simpler than adding the "bool unshared" argument
> > and changing the callers?
>
> I might be being too paranoid, but my concern with using rcu_lock_acquire()
> and rcu_lock_release()
And I agree, I no longer suggest to use rcu_lock_acquire/release.
It seems that you misunderstood me, let me send v2 for review.
Oleg.
fs/file.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
include/linux/fdtable.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 --
kernel/rcu/update.c | 11 -----------
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
--
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