On 10/03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> How about the something like the following, where ->read_side_check()
> gets rcu_read_lock_held(), rcu_read_lock_bh_held(), or
> rcu_read_lock_sched_held(), as appropriate?
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> #define rcu_sync_is_idle_check(rss) BUG_ON(!rss->read_side_check())
> #else
> #define rcu_sync_is_idle_check(rss) do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> rcu_sync_is_idle_check(rss);
Agreed!
but can't we do this in a separate patch? (I will be happy to do
this trivial exercise ;)
This change is trivial, but perhaps it would be better to keep the
initial patch as simple as possible. And discuss the potential
"cosmetic" issues (like naming) separately. Say, rcu_lockdep_assert.
We can't use it directly, we need the new helper.
Oleg.
--
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/
