| To: | Sudip Midya <midya.sudip@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary rcu_lock/unlock around radix_tree_tagged lockless function. The function queue_delayed_work is already protected with interrupts disabled, hence no need to add rcu_lock/unlock. |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:45:24 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20160925192005.GA6517@sudip-Dell-System-Vostro-3450> |
| References: | <20160925192005.GA6517@sudip-Dell-System-Vostro-3450> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:50:06AM +0530, Sudip Midya wrote: > Signed-off-by: Sudip Midya <midya.sudip@xxxxxxxxx> > --- Patch format still needs work. The subject line should be short, the patch description should be in the body of the message, not the subject. Also, this is not a patch for the "mm" subsystem. Addressing the reason given for the change: the RCU lock is not actually protecting queue_delayed_work(), so while the code change may be OK, the reason given for removing it is not. So why is it safe to remove the rcu_read_lock()? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] libxcmd: fix counting of xfs entries in fs_table_insert, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [ANNOUNCE] xfs: for-next branch updated to 2e405cd, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary rcu_lock/unlock around radix_tree_tagged lockless function. The function queue_delayed_work is already protected with interrupts disabled, hence no need to add rcu_lock/unlock., Sudip Midya |
| Next by Thread: | News:Early Bird Sale Up to 90% OFF + Free Shipping794, MichaelKors Sale |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |