Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> > > 	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.

My objection to using rcu_dereference_check() here is that it's a dynamic
check: the compiler emits code to do it, since the lock/unlock status of what
the pointer points to cannot be determined easily at compiler time - and then
the barrier is interpolated anyway unnecessarily.

David
--
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/