On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 07:53:04PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > net/decnet/dn_route.c in dn_rt_cache_get_next() is as follows:
> >> >
> >> > static struct dn_route *dn_rt_cache_get_next(struct seq_file *seq,
> >> > struct dn_route *rt)
> >> > {
> >> > struct dn_rt_cache_iter_state *s = rcu_dereference(seq->private);
> >> >
> >> > rt = rt->u.dst.dn_next;
> >> > while(!rt) {
> >> > rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> >> > if (--s->bucket < 0)
> >> > break;
> >
> > OK, for my next stupid question: why is the rcu_dereference(seq->private)
> > required, as opposed to simply seq->private?
>
> It was put there by someone who went through the code converting
> all occurances of smp_read_barrier_depends to rcu_dereference.
> In this instance the rcu_dereference conversion doesn't make much
> sense so we should probably just revert it.
Thank you for the info! Stupid question #3: what sequence of events
would the smp_read_barrier_depends() be defending against?
Thanx, Paul
-
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
