> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:58:19PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > 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. ;-)
> >
> > Sure, let me rebase it... I already sent a pull request to Linus, and he
> > just loves when I rebase and change the diffstats behind his back :)
>
> Would it help if I submitted the patch to you to back it out later? ;-)
