Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > - if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > + if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
>
> And this one. I thought that Trond said that clp->cl_lock protects
> this one, in which case this should work:
>
> if (rcu_dereference_check(nfsi->delegation,
> lockdep_is_held(&clp->cl_lock)) != NULL) {
If clp->cl_lock protects this pointer, why the need for rcu_dereference_check()
at all? The check is redundant since the line above gets the very lock we're
checking for.
> > - if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > + if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
>
> And this one, although the check for cp->cl_lock obviously won't work here.
>
> > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> > spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
On this one, why does nfsi->delegation need a memory barrier interpolating
afterwards? It has an implicit one in the form of the spin_lock() immediately
after, if the value of the pointer wasn't NULL. What two memory accesses is
the memory barrier ordering?
Ditto on the next one.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
