On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:48:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:
>
> struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
>
> for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> last = i;
>
> This is because hlist_
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:39:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200
> >
> > > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't
> > > do anything unsafe t
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200
>
> > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't
> > do anything unsafe though.
> >
> > In particular, should this use __hlist_for_each_rcu instead?
>
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:39:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200
> >
> > > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't
> > > do anything unsafe t
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200
>
> > I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't
> > do anything unsafe though.
> >
> > In particular, should this use __hlist_for_each_rcu instead?
>
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:48:19 +0200
> I would appreciate review to confirm the function doesn't
> do anything unsafe though.
>
> In particular, should this use __hlist_for_each_rcu instead?
> I note that __hlist_for_each_rcu does rcu_dereference
> internally, which i
6 matches
Mail list logo
