On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:26:11AM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote: > > I am wondering whether we really need the _rcu version of list_cut here? > > I think that @head could point to an _rcu protected list and that's true > > for this patch. So there might be concurrent readers accessing @head using > > _rcu list-traversal primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu(). > > Yes, I can't see how this works for a RCU lists without very careful > memory ordering. > > Btw, another thing - the old vs new list ordering is reversed vs > list_splice*, which is a bit confusing (as are the parameter names > both for list_splice* and this new helper). Can you switch them > around to match? The parameters follow the existing conventions from list_cut_back and list_cut_position. Those functions cut off from the head to the "entry", and this one cuts off the "entry" to the tail instead.
