Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755589Ab3IISvA (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:51:00 -0400 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:58604 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755437Ab3IISu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:50:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:50:47 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, sbw@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section? Message-ID: <20130909185046.GH3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20130909092142.05780991@gandalf.local.home> <20130909134505.GF16280@somewhere> <20130909135656.GT3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130909101629.32df27a2@gandalf.local.home> <20130909161708.GX3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130909123422.7936e868@gandalf.local.home> <20130909165836.GB3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130909172908.GA31239@Krystal> <20130909175656.GF3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130909143639.66ba6c7c@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130909143639.66ba6c7c@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13090918-1344-0000-0000-00000187F11D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 810 Lines: 25 On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:36:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:56:56 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > Although I do like rcu_is_active() better than rcu_read_check(), my > > concern with rcu_is_active() is that it can easily be mistaken for a > > global state rather than a per-CPU/thread/task/whatever state. > > rcu_is_active_local(); rcu_is_active_here()? > Although, even though it's cute. I think "rcu_is_watching_you()" has no > ambiguity. Like I said, I am tempted... Thanx, Paul -- 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/