ostedt; Mathieu Desnoyers; Lai
> > Jiangshan; Jonathan Corbet; open list:READ-COPY UPDATE...; open
> > list:DOCUMENTATION
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: small rcu_dereference doc update
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:53:15PM +, Jeff Haran wrote:
> > > >
PY UPDATE...; open
> list:DOCUMENTATION
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: small rcu_dereference doc update
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:53:15PM +, Jeff Haran wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul E. McKenney [mailto:paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> >
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > Sounds like a good thought for a separate patch. Please take a look
> > through the rest of the documentation -- this might well be the right
> > place for such an exam
thieu Desnoyers; Lai Jiangshan;
> > Jonathan Corbet; open list:READ-COPY UPDATE...; open
> > list:DOCUMENTATION; Jeff Haran
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: small rcu_dereference doc update
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> Sounds like a good thought for a separate patch. Please take a look
> through the rest of the documentation -- this might well be the right
> place for such an example, but there might well be a better place.
> Is this issue mentioned in
t; list:DOCUMENTATION; Jeff Haran
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: small rcu_dereference doc update
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> > return the same pointer i
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:55:20AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> > return the same pointer if update happens while in critical section.
>
> Might as well make it more e
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> return the same pointer if update happens while in critical section.
Might as well make it more explicit with an example then. See below:
>
> Reported-by: Jeff Haran
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:50AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:06:38 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > > Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> > > return the same p
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:13:50AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:06:38 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > > Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> > > return the same po
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:06:38 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> > Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> > return the same pointer if update happens while in critical section.
> >
> > Reported-by: Jef
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Milos Vyletel wrote:
> Make a note stating that repeated calls of rcu_dereference() may not
> return the same pointer if update happens while in critical section.
>
> Reported-by: Jeff Haran
> Signed-off-by: Milos Vyletel
Hmmm... Seems like that should
12 matches
Mail list logo
