[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190408023416.kauuomnkwouyfdfg@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:34:16 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash
bucket.
Hi Neil:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:07:45AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> @@ -263,13 +311,13 @@ void rhashtable_free_and_destroy(struct rhashtable *ht,
> void *arg);
> void rhashtable_destroy(struct rhashtable *ht);
>
> -struct rhash_head __rcu **rht_bucket_nested(const struct bucket_table *tbl,
> - unsigned int hash);
> -struct rhash_head __rcu **__rht_bucket_nested(const struct bucket_table *tbl,
> - unsigned int hash);
> -struct rhash_head __rcu **rht_bucket_nested_insert(struct rhashtable *ht,
> - struct bucket_table *tbl,
> +struct rhash_lock_head __rcu **rht_bucket_nested(const struct bucket_table *tbl,
> + unsigned int hash);
I don't think this opaque type should be marked as __rcu. Because
you can't directly dereference it and once you put it through rht_ptr
then that's the pointer that should carry the __rcu marker.
If you add the __rcu here then you generate a lot of extra noise
in the code that isn't needed.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists