On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:58:19PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > > From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
> > > Date: Wed, Apr 02, 2008 02:36:39PM +0200
> > >
> > > > Looks good and tests fine as well. I've applied it, on top of the
> > > > hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu() fix.
> > > > 
> > > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commit;h=436151ad32b4a59e0d36165a7d63125...
> > > > 
> > 
> > ok, thanks.  anyway I don't think the hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu()
> > is needed at this point, since the pos->next pointer is still valid
> > (at least) until the next rcu_read_unlock().  am I wrong?
> 
> it isn't, but it's still clearer. so either that or a nice comment, I
> just stuck with what I had already committed.

Given Peter's comment, would you be willing to drop the
hlist_for_each_entry_safe_rcu()?  People tend to read too much into
the "safe" sometimes.  ;-)

							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/