Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1536356 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-05 20:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-05 20:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH RFC] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-12-05 20:40 +0100
| From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning |
| Message-ID | <sL7hf-ed-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
> __rcu pointers.
>
> The following trivial patch disables the warning
> without changing the behaviour in any way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
So after reviewing this, there's no rcu-ness involved
except when we assign the next pointer on the last item.
This is because as the following comment says
* The caller must take whatever precautions are necessary
* (such as holding appropriate locks) to avoid racing
* with another list-mutation primitive, such as hlist_add_head_rcu()
* or hlist_del_rcu(), running on this same list.
I conclude this patch is actually the right thing to do, by comparison,
__hlist_for_each_rcu suggested by Dave Miller would be confusing since
it's designed to run in the rcu read side critical section.
I'll repost as non-RFC unless I hear otherwise.
> ---
>
> 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 is missing here.
>
> compile-tested only.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> index 8beb98d..33574db 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> @@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> {
> struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
>
> - for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> + for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
> last = i;
>
> if (last) {
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web