On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:02:43PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:27:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > /**
> > > + * rcu_pointer_handoff() - Hand off a pointer from RCU to other mechanism
> > > + * @p: The pointer to hand off
> > > + *
> > > + * This is simply an identity function, but it documents where a pointer
> > > + * is handed off from RCU to some other synchronization mechanism, for
> > > + * example, reference counting or locking. In C11, it would map to
> > > + * kill_dependency(). It could be used as follows:
> > > + *
> > > + * rcu_read_lock();
> > > + * p = rcu_dereference(gp);
> > > + * long_lived = is_long_lived(p);
> > > + * if (long_lived) {
> > > + * if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(p->refcnt))
> > > + * long_lived = false;
> > > + * else
> > > + * p = rcu_pointer_handoff(p);
> > > + * }
> > > + * rcu_read_unlock();
> > > + */
> > > +#define rcu_pointer_handoff(p) (p)
> >
> > Will you actually be using this? It seems a tad pointless to add if you
> > don't.
>
> Some of the LLVM guys believe that they can diagnose RCU pointer leaks
> if this is used. But yes, it does need to be used.
The thing is, I'm not convinced this is a 'sane' interface. Its _far_
too easy to forget. It doesn't make any kind of sense either, which is
part of why its hard to remember.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
