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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 10:17 am

Hi Peter,

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

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
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs ..., Dmitry Torokhov, (Wed Sep 19, 10:17 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Sep 19, 11:37 am)