[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <707801d5afc6$cac68190$605384b0$@dektech.com.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:00:39 +0700
From: "Tuong Lien Tong" <tuong.t.lien@...tech.com.au>
To: "'Ying Xue'" <ying.xue@...driver.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mingo@...nel.org>, <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<kernel-team@...com>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [tipc-discussion] [PATCH net/tipc] Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace_pointer()
Hi Ying, Paul,
Please see my comments inline. Thanks!
BR/Tuong
-----Original Message-----
From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:32 AM
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; mingo@...nel.org;
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net; kernel-team@...com;
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org; davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [tipc-discussion] [PATCH net/tipc] Replace rcu_swap_protected()
with rcu_replace_pointer()
On 12/11/19 6:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> commit 4ee8e2c68b076867b7a5af82a38010fffcab611c
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Date: Mon Dec 9 19:13:45 2019 -0800
>
> net/tipc: Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace_pointer()
>
> This commit replaces the use of rcu_swap_protected() with the more
> intuitively appealing rcu_replace_pointer() as a step towards removing
> rcu_swap_protected().
>
> Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiAsJLw1egFEE=Z7-GGtM6wcvtyytXZA1+BHqta4g
g6Hw@...l.gmail.com/
> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
> Cc: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>
>
Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
> diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> index 990a872..978d2db 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> @@ -257,9 +257,6 @@ static char *tipc_key_change_dump(struct tipc_key old,
struct tipc_key new,
> #define tipc_aead_rcu_ptr(rcu_ptr, lock) \
> rcu_dereference_protected((rcu_ptr), lockdep_is_held(lock))
>
> -#define tipc_aead_rcu_swap(rcu_ptr, ptr, lock)
\
> - rcu_swap_protected((rcu_ptr), (ptr), lockdep_is_held(lock))
> -
> #define tipc_aead_rcu_replace(rcu_ptr, ptr, lock) \
> do { \
> typeof(rcu_ptr) __tmp = rcu_dereference_protected((rcu_ptr), \
> @@ -1189,7 +1186,7 @@ static bool tipc_crypto_key_try_align(struct
tipc_crypto *rx, u8 new_pending)
>
> /* Move passive key if any */
> if (key.passive) {
> - tipc_aead_rcu_swap(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2, &rx->lock);
> + tmp2 = rcu_replace_pointer(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2,
&rx->lock);
The 3rd parameter should be the lockdep condition checking instead of the
spinlock's pointer i.e. "lockdep_is_held(&rx->lock)"?
That's why I'd prefer to use the 'tipc_aead_rcu_swap ()' macro, which is
clear & concise at least for the context here. It might be re-used later as
well...
> x = (key.passive - key.pending + new_pending) % KEY_MAX;
> new_passive = (x <= 0) ? x + KEY_MAX : x;
> }
>
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
Powered by blists - more mailing lists