Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:17:25 -0400 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock() |
| |
Hi Peter,
On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > Warn when rcu_dereference() is not used in combination with rcu_read_lock() >
According to Paul it is fine to use RCU primitives (when accompanied with proper comments) when the read-size critical section is guarded by spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqsrestore() instead of rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and writers synchronize with synchronize_sched(), not synchronize_rcu(). Your patch will trigger warnign on such valid usages.
-- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |