On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:37:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:46:03PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > A naked read of the value of an RCU pointer isn't safe. Put the whole > > access in an RCU critical section, not just the pointer dereference. > > In this case it is safe, as the device will not go away (and potentially > free dev->name) because it's under the device_list_mutex. > > The locking around devices and related structures is not exactly > straightforward, but here I don't think we need to stick to the RCU > pattern if the protection is guaranteed by other means. This applies to > uuid_mutex and device_list_mutex.
You're right, it's a little confusing because uuid_mutex protects device->name, so under device_list_mutex, device->name might change but will never become NULL. We can just drop this one, thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
