Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:09:07PM +0300, Ranko Zivojnovic wrote: > >>However I decided not to use _rcu based iteration neither the >>rcu_read_lock() after going through the RCU documentation and a bunch of >>examples in kernel that iterate through the lists using non _rcu macros >>and do list_del_rcu() just fine. >> >>For readability, the reference to list_del_rcu as well as call_rcu, I >>believe, should be enough of the indication. Please do correct me if I >>am wrong here. > > > It's only my opinion, and it's probably not very popular at least > at net/ code, so it's more about general policy and not this > particular code. But: > - if somebody is looking after some rcu related problems, why can't > he/she spare some time by omitting lists without _rcu and not > analyzing why/how such lists are used and locked?
RCU is used for the read-side, using it on the write-side just makes things *less* understandable IMO. It will look like the read-side but still do modifications. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
