Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]

[David Howells]

Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +#define rcu_access_pointer(p, c) \

Why is there a need for 'c'?

> +#define rcu_dereference_protect(p, c) \

I'd prefer rcu_dereference_protected(), I think.  This macro doesn't protect
anything.  Also, again, why the need for 'c'?

For instance, in:

	static struct nfs_delegation *nfs_detach_delegation_locked(struct nfs_inode *nfsi, const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
	{
		struct nfs_delegation *delegation =
			rcu_dereference_protected(nfsi->delegation, ????);

what would be the condition?  That the spinlock is held?  That's a condition
for calling the function.

And in:

	void nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim(struct inode *inode)
	{
		struct nfs_client *clp = NFS_SERVER(inode)->nfs_client;
		struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
		struct nfs_delegation *delegation;

		if (rcu_access_pointer(nfsi->delegation, ????) != NULL) {

what would be the condition here?  There's no lock to check - that's the whole
point of the macro.  I also can't give it nfsi->delegation to check as the
value may change between the two accesses.

David
--
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/