On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:09:31PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Paul, > > No objections from me. Thank you, Martin! I have applied your Acked-by, but please let me know if that over-interprets your "No objections" above. > > + vpd_pg80 = rcu_replace(sdev->vpd_pg80, vpd_pg80, > > + lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex)); > > + vpd_pg83 = rcu_replace(sdev->vpd_pg83, vpd_pg83, > > + lockdep_is_held(&sdev->inquiry_mutex)); > > Just a heads-up that we have added a couple of additional VPD pages so > my 5.5 tree will need additional calls to be updated to rcu_replace(). I do not intend to actually remove rcu_swap_protected() until 5.6 for exactly this sort of thing. My plan is to take another pass through the tree after 5.5 comes out, and these will be caught at that time. Does that work for you? Thanx, Paul
