On Thu, 16 May 2019 13:16:23 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:01PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Since the bit_spin_lock() operations don't actually dereference
> > the pointer, it's fine to forcefully drop the RCU annotation.
> > This fixes 7 sparse warnings per include
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:01PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Since the bit_spin_lock() operations don't actually dereference
> the pointer, it's fine to forcefully drop the RCU annotation.
> This fixes 7 sparse warnings per include site.
>
> Fixes: 8f0db018006a ("rhashtable: use bit_spin_lock
On Thu, 16 May 2019 07:42:29 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, May 15 2019, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > Since the bit_spin_lock() operations don't actually dereference
> > the pointer, it's fine to forcefully drop the RCU annotation.
> > This fixes 7 sparse warnings per include site.
> >
> > Fixes
On Wed, May 15 2019, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Since the bit_spin_lock() operations don't actually dereference
> the pointer, it's fine to forcefully drop the RCU annotation.
> This fixes 7 sparse warnings per include site.
>
> Fixes: 8f0db018006a ("rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash buc
Since the bit_spin_lock() operations don't actually dereference
the pointer, it's fine to forcefully drop the RCU annotation.
This fixes 7 sparse warnings per include site.
Fixes: 8f0db018006a ("rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket.")
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
Reviewed-by: Si
