On 10/28/2015 09:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote:Subject: writeback: don't use list_entry_rcu() for pointer offsetting in bdi_split_work_to_wbs() bdi_split_work_to_wbs() uses list_for_each_entry_rcu_continue() to walk @bdi->wb_list. To set up the initial iteration condition, it uses list_entry_rcu() to calculate the entry pointer corresponding to the list head; however, this isn't an actual RCU dereference and using list_entry_rcu() for it ended up breaking a proposed list_entry_rcu() change because it was feeding an non-lvalue pointer into the macro. Don't use the RCU variant for simple pointer offsetting. Use list_entry() instead. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> --- fs/fs-writeback.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c index 29e4599..7378169 100644 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c @@ -779,8 +779,8 @@ static void bdi_split_work_to_wbs(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, bool skip_if_busy) { struct bdi_writeback *last_wb = NULL; - struct bdi_writeback *wb = list_entry_rcu(&bdi->wb_list, - struct bdi_writeback, bdi_node); + struct bdi_writeback *wb = list_entry(&bdi->wb_list, + struct bdi_writeback, bdi_node); might_sleep();Any objections against me applying this fix to tip:core/rcu so that I can push the recent RCU changes towards linux-next without triggering a build failure?
No objection on my side but probably you are waiting for an ack from somebody else.
-- Pat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
