On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200 > > > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't > > do anything unsafe though. > > > > In particular, should this use __hlist_for_each_rcu instead? > > I note that __hlist_for_each_rcu does rcu_dereference > > internally, which is missing here. > > I personally think it should use __hlist_for_each_rcu, otherwise > nothing expresses the rcu-ness of the operation.
What does "rcu-ness" mean in this context? The question is not just about making the code pretty. This operation is called outside any rcu critical section. If you are going to call __hlist_for_each_rcu which calls rcu_dereference, you should do it inside a critical section. Other operations such as hlist_add_behind_rcu manipulate lists manually, maybe this one should, too? Paul? -- MST
