On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 08:02:28PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
quoted text
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > >  	spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > > -	if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > > +	if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
> > 
> > And this one.  I thought that Trond said that clp->cl_lock protects
> > this one, in which case this should work:
> > 
> > 	if (rcu_dereference_check(nfsi->delegation,
> > 				  lockdep_is_held(&clp->cl_lock)) != NULL) {
> 
> If clp->cl_lock protects this pointer, why the need for rcu_dereference_check()
> at all?  The check is redundant since the line above gets the very lock we're
> checking for.

Because Arnd Bergmann is working on a set of patches that makes sparse
complain if you access an RCU-protected pointer directly, without using
some flavor of rcu_dereference().

So your approach would work for the moment, but would need another
change, probably in the 2.6.35 timeframe.

quoted text
> > > -	if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > > +	if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
> > 
> > And this one, although the check for cp->cl_lock obviously won't work here.
> > 
> > >  		spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > >  		delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> > >  		spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
> 
> On this one, why does nfsi->delegation need a memory barrier interpolating
> afterwards?  It has an implicit one in the form of the spin_lock() immediately
> after, if the value of the pointer wasn't NULL.  What two memory accesses is
> the memory barrier ordering?
> 
> Ditto on the next one.

I must defer to Trond on this one.

							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/