On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:04:04AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:36:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > in_dev = dev->ip_ptr;
> > > if (in_dev) {
> > > in_dev = rcu_dereference(in_dev);
> > > atomic_inc(&in_dev->refcnt);
> > > }
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > return in_dev;
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > in_dev = dev->ip_ptr;
> > if (rcu_dereference(in_dev)) {
> > atomic_inc(&in_dev->refcnt);
> > }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > return in_dev;
>
> With this the barrier will taken even when in_dev is NULL.
>
> I agree this isn't such a big deal since it only impacts Alpha and then
> only when in_dev is NULL. But as we already do the branch anyway to
> increment the reference count, we might as well make things a little
> better for Alpha.
OK, how about this instead?
rcu_read_lock();
in_dev = dev->ip_ptr;
if (in_dev) {
atomic_inc(&rcu_dereference(in_dev)->refcnt);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
return in_dev;
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
|
|