On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > .. 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. Why not make that rcu_barrier() in there unconditional? Where are we creating/destroying caches often enough for that to become a problem? -- 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
