[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091106163007.GC6746@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:30:07 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:31:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:55:42 am Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Can you ack this usage please?
> >
> > I thought I had done so in my paragraph above, but if you would like
> > something a bit more formal...
>
> <snip verbose super-ack with qualifications>
>
> That's great guys. And yes, this is a kind of read-copy-update. And no,
> there's nothing wrong with it.
>
> But it's still nasty to use half an API. If it were a few places I would
> have open-coded it with a comment, or wrapped it. As it is, I don't think
> that would be a win.
So would it help to have a rcu_read_lock_workqueue() and
rcu_read_unlock_workqueue() that checked nesting and whether they were
actually running in the context of a workqueue item? Or did you have
something else in mind? Or am I misjudging the level of sarcasm in
your reply? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists