On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:40:19 +0300 > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > With CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply > > rcu_read_lock(), > > I'm suspecting that we have other code which assumes that read_lock, > write_lock > and spin_lock imply rcu_read_lock(). > > I wonder if there are any sane runtime checks we can put in there to find > such problems.
I have a lockdep annotation that finds rcu_dereference() usages outside of rcu_read_lock(). Trouble is the amazing amount of output, I haven't come round to going through it and annotation the false positives (think rcu safe library routines called from contexts where the rcu capability is not used). -- 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/
