[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[PATCH RFC 2/5] doc: rcu: Add more rationale for using rcu_read_lock_sched in checklist
It could be clarified better why rcu_read_lock_sched is better than
using preempt_disable, add the same.

Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <>
Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index 49747717d905..8860ab2a897a 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(),
rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock.
Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but
- is less readable.
+ is less readable and prevents lockdep from detecting locking issues.

Letting RCU-protected pointers "leak" out of an RCU read-side
critical section is every bid as bad as letting them leak out
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-06 01:19    [W:0.082 / U:8.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site