On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:50:26AM +0800, Liping Zhang wrote: > 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? The latter, please resubmit bumping your version number and log. That makes things easier for me than going back and forth trying to figure out what I should do, thanks! -- 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
