[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006202741.GW3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 22:27:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.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 10/13] rcu: Add rcu_pointer_handoff()
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> /**
> + * rcu_pointer_handoff() - Hand off a pointer from RCU to other mechanism
> + * @p: The pointer to hand off
> + *
> + * This is simply an identity function, but it documents where a pointer
> + * is handed off from RCU to some other synchronization mechanism, for
> + * example, reference counting or locking. In C11, it would map to
> + * kill_dependency(). It could be used as follows:
> + *
> + * rcu_read_lock();
> + * p = rcu_dereference(gp);
> + * long_lived = is_long_lived(p);
> + * if (long_lived) {
> + * if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(p->refcnt))
> + * long_lived = false;
> + * else
> + * p = rcu_pointer_handoff(p);
> + * }
> + * rcu_read_unlock();
> + */
> +#define rcu_pointer_handoff(p) (p)
Will you actually be using this? It seems a tad pointless to add if you
don't.
--
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