Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:55:18 +0100 | Subject | Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions | From | Vegard Nossum <> |
| |
[trimmed Cc]
>2) remove the stale signal code snippet ... 2009/12/10 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>: > Index: linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt > +++ linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt > @@ -429,8 +429,7 @@ Let's take a look at it: > 193 /* > 194 * We won't get problems with the target's UID changing under us > 195 * because changing it requires RCU be used, and if t != current, the > -196 * caller must be holding the RCU readlock (by way of a spinlock) and > -197 * we use RCU protection here > +196 * caller must be holding the RCU readlocke > 198 */ > 199 user = get_uid(__task_cred(t)->user); > 200 atomic_inc(&user->sigpending);
I am not sure that I really agree with this change. This is not a code example for the sake of showing how to do a particular thing, it's an example of real code from the tree.
I don't remember if the document is referring to a particular git version of the code, but I think it might not, in which case it doesn't REALLY matter even on the microscopic level.
But I won't make a big fuss about it :-)
Vegard
PS: Upon closer inspection, I noticed that one line (line 197) goes completely missing, there seems to be a typo there too, "readlocke". Still it's not a huge deal, I admit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |