On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:31:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:55:42 am Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Can you ack this usage please? > > > > I thought I had done so in my paragraph above, but if you would like > > something a bit more formal... > > <snip verbose super-ack with qualifications> > > That's great guys. And yes, this is a kind of read-copy-update. And no, > there's nothing wrong with it. > > But it's still nasty to use half an API. If it were a few places I would > have open-coded it with a comment, or wrapped it. As it is, I don't think > that would be a win. So would it help to have a rcu_read_lock_workqueue() and rcu_read_unlock_workqueue() that checked nesting and whether they were actually running in the context of a workqueue item? Or did you have something else in mind? Or am I misjudging the level of sarcasm in your reply? ;-) Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
