Re: [RFC][Patch] RCU documentation
From: Nikita Danilov
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 04:39:57 EST
Paul E. McKenney writes:
> Hello!
Hello Paul,
[...]
>
> + static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
> + struct list_head *list,
> + __u32 newaction,
> + __u32 newfield_count)
> + {
> + struct audit_entry *e;
> + struct audit_newentry *ne;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
> + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
> + ne = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (ne == NULL)
> + return _ENOMEM;
-ENOMEM;
> + audit_copy_rule(&ne->rule, &e->rule);
> + ne->rule.action = newaction;
[...]
> + static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
> + {
> + struct audit_entry *e;
> + enum audit_state state;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(e, &audit_tsklist, list) {
> + if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) {
> + spin_lock(&e->lock);
> + if (e->deleted) {
> + spin_unlock(&e->lock);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
Shouldn't this be "continue", to work correctly in the face of mutators
similar to audit_upd_rule(), that at some point leave both old (marked
->deleted) and new versions on the list?
Also, RCU used instead of existential lock is so typical, that it
probably deserves dedicated example.
> + }
[...]
Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/