[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <148908583031.16794.3148860885485623069.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:57:10 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Andreea-Cristina Bernat <bernat.ada@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 12/27] afs: security: Replace rcu_assign_pointer() with
RCU_INIT_POINTER()
From: Andreea-Cristina Bernat <bernat.ada@...il.com>
The use of "rcu_assign_pointer()" is NULLing out the pointer.
According to RCU_INIT_POINTER()'s block comment:
"1. This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer"
it is better to use it instead of rcu_assign_pointer() because it has a
smaller overhead.
The following Coccinelle semantic patch was used:
@@
@@
- rcu_assign_pointer
+ RCU_INIT_POINTER
(..., NULL)
Signed-off-by: Andreea-Cristina Bernat <bernat.ada@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
---
fs/afs/security.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/afs/security.c b/fs/afs/security.c
index bfa9d3428383..ecb86a670180 100644
--- a/fs/afs/security.c
+++ b/fs/afs/security.c
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ void afs_clear_permits(struct afs_vnode *vnode)
mutex_lock(&vnode->permits_lock);
permits = vnode->permits;
- rcu_assign_pointer(vnode->permits, NULL);
+ RCU_INIT_POINTER(vnode->permits, NULL);
mutex_unlock(&vnode->permits_lock);
if (permits)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists