On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:19:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another approach would be to add an argument to files_fdtable()
> > > > t
On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:19:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > Another approach would be to add an argument to files_fdtable()
> > > that is zero normally and one for "we know we don't need RCU
> > > protection.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:19:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > I am not all that excited about invoking rcu_lock_acquire() outside
> > of RCU...
>
> Yes, me too. That is why I thought about the helper with a good name,
> see below.
>
> > Another approac
On 01/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> I am not all that excited about invoking rcu_lock_acquire() outside
> of RCU...
Yes, me too. That is why I thought about the helper with a good name,
see below.
> Another approach would be to add an argument to files_fdtable()
> that is zero normally and one
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I tried to audit the users of thread_group_empty() (we need
> to change it) and found rcu_my_thread_group_empty() which
> looks wrong.
>
> The patches look simple, but I am not sure it is fine to use
> rcu_lock_acquire()
Hello.
I tried to audit the users of thread_group_empty() (we need
to change it) and found rcu_my_thread_group_empty() which
looks wrong.
The patches look simple, but I am not sure it is fine to use
rcu_lock_acquire() directly. Perhaps it makes sense to add a
new helper? Note that we have more us
6 matches
Mail list logo