Re: [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls

Paul E. McKenney wrote:

Hello!

While reviewing rcu_dereference() uses, I came across a number of cases
where I couldn't see how the rcu_dereference() helped.  One class of
cases is where the variable is never subsequently dereferenced, so that
patches like the following one would be appropriate.

So, what am I missing here?

Nothing, it was mainly intended as documentation that the hooks are
protected by RCU. I agree that its probably more confusing this way
since we're not even in a rcu_read_lock protected section.

I've queued a patch to remove them all.
-
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: [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [REGRESSION] 2.6.24-rc1 fails to boot on a 486
• Next by Date: Re: is the inode an orphan?
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] nf_nat_h323.c unneeded rcu_dereference() calls
• 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]