Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()

Hi Peter,

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Warn when rcu_dereference() is not used in combination with rcu_read_lock()
>

According to Paul it is fine to use RCU primitives (when accompanied
with proper comments) when the read-size critical section is guarded
by spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqsrestore() instead of
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and writers synchronize with
synchronize_sched(), not synchronize_rcu(). Your patch will trigger
warnign on such valid usages.

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC][PATCH 0/6] using lockdep to validate rcu usage
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated)
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 00/24] Read-only bind mounts
• Previous by thread: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]