On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:14:19PM +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. > > It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so > does not need to be called in a read side critical section. > > The following trivial patch disables the warning > without changing the behaviour in any way. > > Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be > confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu > read side critical section. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org>
Queud for further review and testing, thank you both! Thanx, Paul > --- > > Comments from v2: > add a comment as requested by Steven Rostedt > > include/linux/rculist.h | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h > index 4f7a956..b1fd8bf 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h > @@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ 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)) > + /* Note: write side code, so rcu accessors are not needed. */ > + for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next) > last = i; > > if (last) { > -- > MST >