On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:57:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:13:37 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:24:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:34:00 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, it was an optimisation. spin_lock() implies rcu_read_lock(). That's
> > > > a bit dirty and we might choose to not do that.
> > >
> > > Not true for the preemptible-rcu work. All such sites should be fixed,
> > > or at the very least heavily annotated.
> >
> > What he said!!!
> >
>
> What he said!
>
> How are you going to find all such sites?
A first step would be to look for patches in -rt that add rcu_read_lock()
or friends. A second step would be to look for rcu_dereference() without
an enclosing rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(), or preempt_disable().
Beyond a certain point, this reduces to the problem of finding places
where spin_lock() was omitted, right?
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
