Re: [PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators

2007-09-17 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:21:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:21:07 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:22:45AM -0700, Matthew Helsley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > The _safe

Re: [PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators

2007-09-14 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:21:07 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:22:45AM -0700, Matthew Helsley wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > The _safe list iterators make a blanket statement about how they are > > > safe a

Re: [PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators

2007-09-13 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:22:45AM -0700, Matthew Helsley wrote: > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The _safe list iterators make a blanket statement about how they are > > safe against removal. This patch, inspired by private conversations > > with people who unwisel

Re: [PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators

2007-09-13 Thread Matthew Helsley
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The _safe list iterators make a blanket statement about how they are > safe against removal. This patch, inspired by private conversations > with people who unwisely but perhaps understandably took this blanket > statement at its word, a

[PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators

2007-09-12 Thread Paul E. McKenney
The _safe list iterators make a blanket statement about how they are safe against removal. This patch, inspired by private conversations with people who unwisely but perhaps understandably took this blanket statement at its word, adds comments stating limits to this safety. Signed-off-by: Paul E.