Hello!
While reviewing rcu_dereference() uses, I came across a number of cases
where I couldn't see how the rcu_dereference() helped. One class of
cases is where the variable is never subsequently dereferenced, so that
patches like the following one would be appropriate.
So, what am I missing here?
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
nf_nat_h323.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.23/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_h323.c
linux-2.6.23-rcufix/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_h323.c
--- linux-2.6.23/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_h323.c 2007-10-09
13:31:38.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.23-rcufix/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_h323.c 2007-10-29
14:00:13.000000000 -0700
@@ -546,15 +546,15 @@ static int nat_callforwarding(struct sk_
/****************************************************************************/
static int __init init(void)
{
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(set_h245_addr_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(set_h225_addr_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(set_sig_addr_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(set_ras_addr_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(nat_rtp_rtcp_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(nat_t120_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(nat_h245_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(nat_callforwarding_hook) != NULL);
- BUG_ON(rcu_dereference(nat_q931_hook) != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(set_h245_addr_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(set_h225_addr_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(set_sig_addr_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(set_ras_addr_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(nat_rtp_rtcp_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(nat_t120_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(nat_h245_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(nat_callforwarding_hook != NULL);
+ BUG_ON(nat_q931_hook != NULL);
rcu_assign_pointer(set_h245_addr_hook, set_h245_addr);
rcu_assign_pointer(set_h225_addr_hook, set_h225_addr);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
