Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Because Arnd Bergmann is working on a set of patches that makes sparse
> complain if you access an RCU-protected pointer directly, without using
> some flavor of rcu_dereference().
>
> So your approach would work for the moment, but would need another
> change, probably in the 2.6.35 timeframe.
My objection to using rcu_dereference_check() here is that it's a dynamic
check: the compiler emits code to do it, since the lock/unlock status of what
the pointer points to cannot be determined easily at compiler time - and then
the barrier is interpolated anyway unnecessarily.
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
