On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 01:57:02AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > 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! Hm, this patch requires no changes actually. Now I understand why you're confused there. So let me know if you I should just take this or wait for you to resubmit. In case of doubt, resubmitting is just fine. 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
