[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029105704.GY3337@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:57:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 9/9] rcu: Provide counterpart to
rcu_dereference() for non-RCU situations
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:10:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Although rcu_dereference() and friends can be used in situations where
> object lifetimes are being managed by something other than RCU, the
> resulting sparse and lockdep-RCU noise can be annoying. This commit
> therefore supplies a lockless_dereference(), which provides the
> protection for dereferences without the RCU-related debugging noise.
>
> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> +#define lockless_dereference(p) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> + smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> + (_________p1); \
> +})
Should we not have at least a single user along with this?
--
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