Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think it is incorrectly used. Given that the rcu_dereference() in:
> >
> > if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> > spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > if (delegation != NULL)
> > nfs_do_return_delegation(inode, delegation, 0);
> > }
>
> And nfs_detach_delegation_locked() rechecks nfsi->delegation() under
> the lock, so this is a legitimate use.
>
> The pointer is not held constant, but any changes will be accounted
> for and handled correctly. So I would argue that the pointer value is
> in fact protected by the recheck-under-lock algorithm used here.
A legitimate use of what?
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
