From: Monam Agarwal
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:02:32 +0530
> This patch replaces rcu_assign_pointer(x, NULL) with RCU_INIT_POINTER(x, NULL)
>
> The rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the initialization of a structure
> is carried out before storing a pointer to that structure.
> And in the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:47:32PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 01:25 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 07:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> >> Seems an incredibly strict requirement for something that just
> >> silences a warning.
> >> What exactly should I
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 08:22 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What happens if someone then changes that NULL to something else?
> Things will start to break in subtle way, won't they?
Sure. As anything else can break when/if using wrong API or in any
change. Particularly in RCU protected code. E
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:22:25AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:25:27PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 07:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > Seems an incredibly strict requirement for something that just
> > > silences a warning.
>
On 03/24/2014 01:25 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 07:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> Seems an incredibly strict requirement for something that just
>> silences a warning.
>> What exactly should I test?
>> I intended to just verify this produces same code as before
>> d32
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:25:27PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 07:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Seems an incredibly strict requirement for something that just
> > silences a warning.
> > What exactly should I test?
> > I intended to just verify this produces same
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 07:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Seems an incredibly strict requirement for something that just
> silences a warning.
> What exactly should I test?
> I intended to just verify this produces same code as before
> d322f45ceed525daa under a recent gcc.
Thats because man
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 03:12:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:54:17PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 21:41 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > The rcu_assign_
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:54:17PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 21:41 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > The rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the initialization of a structure
> > >
> > >
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:54:17PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 21:41 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > The rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the initialization of a structure
> >
> > is carried out before storing a pointer to that structure.
> > In the case of
On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 21:41 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the initialization of a structure
> is carried out before storing a pointer to that structure.
> In the case of the NULL pointer, there is no structure to initialize,
> so we can safely dro
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:02:32AM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
> This patch replaces rcu_assign_pointer(x, NULL) with RCU_INIT_POINTER(x, NULL)
>
> The rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the initialization of a structure
> is carried out before storing a pointer to that structure.
> And in
12 matches
Mail list logo
