On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 07:04:31PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mardi 30 mars 2010 à 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 05:39:11PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Scrap this one -- Arnd has it covered, under the much better name > > > > of rcu_dereference_const(). > > > > > > Not convinced of that name either. That sounds like the RCU dereference of > > > constant (R/O) data. > > > > Which it is, as long as the lock is held. > > > > But what name would you suggest? > > > > Maybe use 'protected' word or something like that, or 'owned', ... > > rcu_dereference_protected() or rcu_dereference_owned() I do like rcu_dereference_protected() -- a bit longer than rcu_dereference_locked(), but covers the initialization and cleanup accesses that might be protected by privatization rather than by locking. Other thoughts? Thanx, Paul -- 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
