On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 17:56 +0300, Andreea-Cristina Bernat wrote: > The uses of "rcu_assign_pointer()" are NULLing out the pointers. > According to RCU_INIT_POINTER()'s block comment: > "1. This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer" > it is better to use it instead of rcu_assign_pointer() because it has a > smaller overhead. > > The following Coccinelle semantic patch was used: > @@ > @@ > > - rcu_assign_pointer > + RCU_INIT_POINTER > (..., NULL) > > Signed-off-by: Andreea-Cristina Bernat <bernat....@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > index 8d65a51a..c11a638 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > @@ -296,9 +296,9 @@ void fc_fc4_deregister_provider(enum fc_fh_type type, > struct fc4_prov *prov) > BUG_ON(type >= FC_FC4_PROV_SIZE); > mutex_lock(&fc_prov_mutex); > if (prov->recv) > - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); > + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); > else > - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); > + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); > mutex_unlock(&fc_prov_mutex); > synchronize_rcu(); > }
Looks like patch is not yet applied. Acked-by: Vasu Dev <vasu....@intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
