Re: [PATCH v2] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:14:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:
> 
> struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> 
> for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> last = i;
> 
> This is because hlist_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
> __rcu pointers.
> 
> It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so
> does not need to be called in a read side critical section.
> 
> The following trivial patch disables the warning
> without changing the behaviour in any way.
> 
> Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be
> confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu
> read side critical section.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin 
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) 

Queud for further review and testing, thank you both!

Thanx, Paul

> ---
> 
> Comments from v2:
>   add a comment as requested by Steven Rostedt
> 
>  include/linux/rculist.h | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> index 4f7a956..b1fd8bf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> @@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node 
> *n,
>  {
>   struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> 
> - for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> + /* Note: write side code, so rcu accessors are not needed. */
> + for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
>   last = i;
> 
>   if (last) {
> -- 
> MST
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:14:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:
> 
> struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> 
> for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> last = i;
> 
> This is because hlist_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
> __rcu pointers.
> 
> It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so
> does not need to be called in a read side critical section.
> 
> The following trivial patch disables the warning
> without changing the behaviour in any way.
> 
> Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be
> confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu
> read side critical section.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin 
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) 

Queud for further review and testing, thank you both!

Thanx, Paul

> ---
> 
> Comments from v2:
>   add a comment as requested by Steven Rostedt
> 
>  include/linux/rculist.h | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> index 4f7a956..b1fd8bf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> @@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node 
> *n,
>  {
>   struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> 
> - for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> + /* Note: write side code, so rcu accessors are not needed. */
> + for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
>   last = i;
> 
>   if (last) {
> -- 
> MST
> 

[PATCH v2] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:

struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;

for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
last = i;

This is because hlist_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
__rcu pointers.

It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so
does not need to be called in a read side critical section.

The following trivial patch disables the warning
without changing the behaviour in any way.

Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be
confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu
read side critical section.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin 
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) 
---

Comments from v2:
add a comment as requested by Steven Rostedt

 include/linux/rculist.h | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
index 4f7a956..b1fd8bf 100644
--- a/include/linux/rculist.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
@@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
 {
struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
 
-   for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
+   /* Note: write side code, so rcu accessors are not needed. */
+   for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
last = i;
 
if (last) {
-- 
MST

[PATCH v2] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:

struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;

for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
last = i;

This is because hlist_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
__rcu pointers.

It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so
does not need to be called in a read side critical section.

The following trivial patch disables the warning
without changing the behaviour in any way.

Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be
confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu
read side critical section.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin 
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) 
---

Comments from v2:
add a comment as requested by Steven Rostedt

 include/linux/rculist.h | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
index 4f7a956..b1fd8bf 100644
--- a/include/linux/rculist.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
@@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
 {
struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
 
-   for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
+   /* Note: write side code, so rcu accessors are not needed. */
+   for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
last = i;
 
if (last) {
-- 
MST