On 8/12/13 9:04 AM, "Marciniszyn, Mike" <mike.marcinis...@intel.com> wrote:
>> + /* remove from parent list */
>> + list_del(&neigh->list);
>> call_rcu(&neigh->rcu, ipoib_neigh_reclaim);
>
>Should the list_del be a list_del_rcu()?
I don't believe so, as it's the neighbor hash table
(priv->ntbl->htbl) that is RCU protected and not neigh->list.
Jim
>
>From Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt:
>
>Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions:
>
> static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
> struct list_head *list)
> {
> struct audit_entry *e;
>
> /* Do not use the _rcu iterator here, since this is the
>only
> * deletion routine. */
> list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
> if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
> list_del_rcu(&e->list);
> call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
> return 0;
> }
> }
> return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
