On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:29:24 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:57:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:13:37 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:24:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:34:00 -0700 Andrew Morton > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, it was an optimisation. spin_lock() implies rcu_read_lock(). > > > > > That's > > > > > a bit dirty and we might choose to not do that. > > > > > > > > Not true for the preemptible-rcu work. All such sites should be fixed, > > > > or at the very least heavily annotated. > > > > > > What he said!!! > > > > > > > What he said! > > > > How are you going to find all such sites? > > A first step would be to look for patches in -rt that add rcu_read_lock() > or friends. A second step would be to look for rcu_dereference() without > an enclosing rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(), or preempt_disable(). I could perhaps do that with that rcu_read_lock lockdep annotation. If I add a check for holding rcu_read_lock in rcu_dereference(). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
