On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This would of course require that synchronize_all_irqs() be in the
> > RCU code rather than the irq code so that it could access the static
> > wakeme_after_rcu() definition and the rcu_synchronize structure.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> I do like this better. Anyone else care to comment?
>
I'm still wondering why the IRQ users cannot user proper RCU as it
stands:
rcu_read_lock();
foo = rcu_dereference(bar);
if (foo)
foo();
rcu_read_unlock();
vs
rcu_assign(foo, NULL);
synchronize_rcu();
and the like.
The implicit rcu_read_lock() as placed in handle_IRQ_event() seems
misplaced.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
