Hi Ying, Paul, Please see my comments inline. Thanks!
BR/Tuong -----Original Message----- From: Ying Xue <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:32 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [tipc-discussion] [PATCH net/tipc] Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace_pointer() On 12/11/19 6:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > commit 4ee8e2c68b076867b7a5af82a38010fffcab611c > Author: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Dec 9 19:13:45 2019 -0800 > > net/tipc: Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace_pointer() > > This commit replaces the use of rcu_swap_protected() with the more > intuitively appealing rcu_replace_pointer() as a step towards removing > rcu_swap_protected(). > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiAsJLw1egFEE=Z7-GGtM6wcvtyytXZA1+BHqta4g [email protected]/ > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > Cc: Jon Maloy <[email protected]> > Cc: Ying Xue <[email protected]> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Ying Xue <[email protected]> > diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c > index 990a872..978d2db 100644 > --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c > +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c > @@ -257,9 +257,6 @@ static char *tipc_key_change_dump(struct tipc_key old, struct tipc_key new, > #define tipc_aead_rcu_ptr(rcu_ptr, lock) \ > rcu_dereference_protected((rcu_ptr), lockdep_is_held(lock)) > > -#define tipc_aead_rcu_swap(rcu_ptr, ptr, lock) \ > - rcu_swap_protected((rcu_ptr), (ptr), lockdep_is_held(lock)) > - > #define tipc_aead_rcu_replace(rcu_ptr, ptr, lock) \ > do { \ > typeof(rcu_ptr) __tmp = rcu_dereference_protected((rcu_ptr), \ > @@ -1189,7 +1186,7 @@ static bool tipc_crypto_key_try_align(struct tipc_crypto *rx, u8 new_pending) > > /* Move passive key if any */ > if (key.passive) { > - tipc_aead_rcu_swap(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2, &rx->lock); > + tmp2 = rcu_replace_pointer(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2, &rx->lock); The 3rd parameter should be the lockdep condition checking instead of the spinlock's pointer i.e. "lockdep_is_held(&rx->lock)"? That's why I'd prefer to use the 'tipc_aead_rcu_swap ()' macro, which is clear & concise at least for the context here. It might be re-used later as well... > x = (key.passive - key.pending + new_pending) % KEY_MAX; > new_passive = (x <= 0) ? x + KEY_MAX : x; > } > _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
