[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVJ69Uib2Y4GqVZ4eHd25JrUZCa=d4ZGq4WCd+Q4vVi1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:35:17 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/17] net: sched: protect filter_chain list
with filter_chain_lock mutex
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> +static inline bool lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(struct tcf_chain *chain)
> +{
> + return lockdep_is_held(&chain->filter_chain_lock);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(struct tcf_block *chain)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> +
> +#define tcf_chain_dereference(p, chain) \
> + rcu_dereference_protected(p, lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(chain))
Are you sure you need this #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING?
rcu_dereference_protected() should already test CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
Ditto for tcf_proto_dereference().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists