> Why not just call synchronize_rcu instead? Not sure I understand. Where would you put the synchronize_rcu and what would it protect against? RCU is being used to protect the radix tree internals, not the mlx4 data structures.
> > I guess CQ spinlock implies rcu_read_lock - is that right? > > But I do not see any synchronize_rcu calls anywhere in mlx4. > > Should destroy QP and friends call synchronize_rcu after > > removing the QP from radix tree but before freeing the QP structure? By the way, replying to this earlier bit: I don't think the CQ spinlock is equivalent to an rcu_read_lock(). In most configurations it may be but I suspect the assumption would be broken by PREEMPT_RT or the like. - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
