* Paul E. McKenney | 2014-12-03 13:19:11 [-0800]: >> Is that not actually a bug indepedent of RT ? >> without the rcu_read_lock/unlock who says that the >> rcu_dereference is still valid at this point ? >> I though that if bh are already disabled you still >> need the read_lock. disabled bh would allow to "downgrad" >> the rcu_read_lock_bh to rcu_read_lock but you still need it. > >In vanilla kernels, anything that disables BH acts as rcu_read_lock_bh(). >So yes, you can have cases where rcu_read_lock_bh() is needed only in >the -rt kernel. But it won't hurt mainline using rcu_read_lock_bh() around rcu_dereference_bh() right? I am not going to apply this because that code is gone shortly after v3.14 was released. The fm10k however does the same thing so atleast RCU knows when to scream :) > > Thanx, Paul Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
