<snip>
>
> But we should have already rcu_dereference()ed "slot", right
> (in the loop above this one)? That means we are now able to
> dereference it, and the data at the other end will be valid.
>
Yes, but my confusion is about the following piece of code
<begin code>
for ( ; height > 1; height--) {
for (i = (index >> shift) & RADIX_TREE_MAP_MASK ;
i < RADIX_TREE_MAP_SIZE; i++) {
- if (slot->slots[i] != NULL)
+ __s = rcu_dereference(slot->slots[i]);
+ if (__s != NULL)
break;
index &= ~((1UL << shift) - 1);
index += 1UL << shift;
@@ -531,14 +550,14 @@ __lookup(struct radix_tree_root *root, v
goto out;
shift -= RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT;
- slot = slot->slots[i];
+ slot = __s;
}
/* Bottom level: grab some items */
for (i = index & RADIX_TREE_MAP_MASK; i < RADIX_TREE_MAP_SIZE; i++) {
index++;
if (slot->slots[i]) {
- results[nr_found++] = slot->slots[i];
+ results[nr_found++] = &slot->slots[i];
if (nr_found == max_items)
goto out;
}
<end code>
In the for loop, lets say __s is *not* NULL, we break from the loop.
In the loop below
slot->slots[i] is derefenced without rcu, __s is not used. Is that not
inconsistent?
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
