On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 03:40 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Martin Josefsson wrote: > > As a somewhat related note, I've just digged a bit through RCU land, > > talked to dipankar and mckenney, and discovered that rcu_read_lock() / > > rcu_read_unlock() aren't strictly needed in softirqs since preempt is > > already disabled in softirqs. This means that you can use the result of > > the rcu read-side critical outside of the rcu_read_lock() / > > Thats true, but in this case the code is executed both in softirq- > and user-context. Using rcu_read_lock and still relying on softirq > properties outside the locked section is also very confusing in my > opinion.
Yes it is very fishy relying on the softirq properties, especially since they don't apply to -rt kernels and that there might be other changes in this area in the future. It's not recommended. -- /Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
