Hi Pablo, 2017-04-14 6:29 GMT+08:00 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: [...] >> After I have a closer look, inside hlist_for_each_entry_rcu, we use the >> rcu_dereference_raw() to get the pointer, and this will not generate warning: >> >> #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ >> for (pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\ >> typeof(*(pos)), member); >> .... >> >> Then "This is likely going to spot false positives with the RCU >> debugging instrumentation" >> will not happen. > > Right, instrumentation will not trigger any problem. > > But even if instrumention is not a problem, I just would like to avoid > people sending me "obvious" fixes afterwards, by removing _rcu since > they see this code runs under mutex or how knows what. I'm a little confusing about this one. I found "http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/744786/"; and "http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/743472/"; were both set to "Changes Requested". So which one is you prefer to :)? What's next step should I do? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
