On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 03:06:00PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:05:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If you mean what I think you mean by load_acquire_depends(), it is spelled
> > "rcu_dereference()" or, in this case, where you are never removing anything
> > that has been added, "rcu_dereference_raw()". Because you are never
> > removing anything, you don't need rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_unlock(),
> > thus you don't want lockdep yelling at you about not having RCU read-side
> > critical sections, thus rcu_dereference_raw().
>
> Yeah, along that line but it's kinda weird to use rcu_dereference()
> when RCU isn't involved. It'd be clearer to have something like
> load_acquire_depends() and then define RCU deref in terms of it.
>
> This is purely notational and clarifiying in the documentation is
> probably enough.
OK. If there end up being too many non-RCU uses of rcu_dereference_raw(),
then it might make sense to create a new primitive. But it is not like
we have any shortage of them just now. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
