Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] libfs: Replace rcu_assign_pointer() with RCU_INIT_POINTER() | From | Vasu Dev <> | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:01:11 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 17:56 +0300, Andreea-Cristina Bernat wrote: > The uses of "rcu_assign_pointer()" are NULLing out the pointers. > According to RCU_INIT_POINTER()'s block comment: > "1. This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer" > it is better to use it instead of rcu_assign_pointer() because it has a > smaller overhead. > > The following Coccinelle semantic patch was used: > @@ > @@ > > - rcu_assign_pointer > + RCU_INIT_POINTER > (..., NULL) > > Signed-off-by: Andreea-Cristina Bernat <bernat.ada@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > index 8d65a51a..c11a638 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_libfc.c > @@ -296,9 +296,9 @@ void fc_fc4_deregister_provider(enum fc_fh_type type, struct fc4_prov *prov) > BUG_ON(type >= FC_FC4_PROV_SIZE); > mutex_lock(&fc_prov_mutex); > if (prov->recv) > - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); > + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_passive_prov[type], NULL); > else > - rcu_assign_pointer(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); > + RCU_INIT_POINTER(fc_active_prov[type], NULL); > mutex_unlock(&fc_prov_mutex); > synchronize_rcu(); > }
Looks like patch is not yet applied.
Acked-by: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
| |