On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 04:17:55PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 15:56 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > I'd be really hesitant to introduce that type of direct assignment to an > > __rcu pointer without wrapping it in some appropriately named macro, or > > at the very least adding a comment. > > Well, there is no special magic here, in this specific case : > > - deleting an item in an rcu list > > Check list_del_rcu(), and you'll notice there is no _barrier_ > > Adding correct barriers is good, but please do not add them when not > needed. > > It makes code hard to understand.
I'm not arguing for the inclusion of an unnecessary barrier. I'm arguing for something more self-documenting than: > ACCESS(*ptr) = value; that. Constructs like list_del_rcu are much clearer, and not open-coded. Open-coding synchronization code is almost always a Bad Idea. - Josh Triplett -- 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/
