On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:17:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:06:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 04/13/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >> A group of Linux kernel hackers reported chasing a bug that resulted
> > >> from their assumption that SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU provided an existence
> > >> guarantee, that is, that no block from such a slab would be reallocated
> > >> during an RCU read-side critical section. Of course, that is not the
> > >> case. Instead, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU only prevents freeing of an entire
> > >> slab of blocks.
> > >
> > > And that while we wrote a huge honking comment right along with it...
> > >
> > >> [ paulmck: Add "tombstone" comments as requested by Eric Dumazet. ]
> > >
> > > I cannot find any occurrence of "tomb" or "TOMB" in the actual patch,
> > > confused?
> >
> > It's the comments such as:
> >
> > + * Note that SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU was originally named SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
> >
> > so that people who remember the old name can git grep its fate.
>
> git log -S SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
My (perhaps naive) hope is that having more than one path to
the information will reduce the number of "Whatever happened to
SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU?" queries.
Thanx, Paul
