On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> IIUC, moving rcu_barrier() up should help, but I can't say that I fully
> understand SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU semantics.
.. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
probably shouldn't use it.
We don't even want SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, since we do the delayed RCU
free for other reasons anyway, so it would duplicate the RCU delaying
and cause problems. I forgot about that little complication.
We could have a separate "RCU_BARRIER_ON_DESTROY" thing, but that's
just silly too.
Maybe your patch is the right thing.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
