On 03/02/2016 05:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:33:14PM +0800, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> + if (attr == &dev_attr_vpd_pg80 &&
>>>> + !rcu_dereference(sdev->vpd_pg80)) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (attr == &dev_attr_vpd_pg83 &&
>>>> + !rcu_dereference(sdev->vpd_pg83)) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>
>>> We are only checking the pointers for being non-zero. No need for the
>>> rcu_read_lock() or rcu_dereference() here.
>>>
>> Better to be same than sorry; some overly clever code analysis tool
>> might trip over it otherwise.
>
> It shouldn't. There is no dereference going on here.
>
Ok.
>>
>>> Otherwise this looks fine to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: ?
>
> Only without the cargo culted rcu magic.
>
Okay, will be resending it.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
