On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:57:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:13:37 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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
> > > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/