Re: [PATCH tip/urgent] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected

[David Howells]

Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In other cases, there will be a reference counter or a "not yet fully
> initialized" flag that can (and should) be tested.

Why would you be using rcu_access_pointer() there?  Why wouldn't you be using
rcu_dereference_protected()?


Also, one other thing:  Should the default versions of these functions make
some reference to 'c' to prevent compiler warnings?  Should:

	#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c)	rcu_dereference_raw(p)

for example, be:

	#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c)	\
	({					\
		if (1 || !(c))			\
			rcu_dereference_raw(p);	\
	})

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's possible to envisage a situation where
someone calculates something specifically for use in 'c', which will cause an
warning from the compiler if c isn't then checked.

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/