On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:12:01AM -0800, willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:07:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > A group of Linux kernel hackers reported chasing a bug that resulted > > from their assumption that SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU provided an existence > > guarantee, that is, that no block from such a slab would be reallocated > > during an RCU read-side critical section. Of course, that is not the > > case. Instead, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU only prevents freeing of an entire > > slab of blocks. > > > > However, there is a phrase for this, namely "type safety". This commit > > therefore renames SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU in order > > to avoid future instances of this sort of confusion. > > This is probably the ultimate in bikeshedding, but RCU is not the > thing which is providing the typesafety. Slab is providing the > typesafety in order to help RCU. So would a better name not be > 'SLAB_TYPESAFETY_FOR_RCU', or more succinctly 'SLAB_RCU_TYPESAFE'? Actually, slab is using RCU to provide type safety to those slab users who request it. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>