Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:60309 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754847AbaGNP31 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:29:27 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Jeff Layton Cc: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, bfields@fieldses.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Paul McKenney Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sunrpc: remove __rcu annotation from struct gss_cl_ctx->gc_gss_ctx Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:29:16 +0200 Message-ID: <25661493.tnN6lHRVBE@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20140714110202.4e311df2@tlielax.poochiereds.net> References: <1405303064-9102-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <6702571.1HVrh55XfQ@wuerfel> <20140714110202.4e311df2@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 14 July 2014 11:02:02 Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:23:53 +0200 > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sunday 13 July 2014 21:57:38 Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > Commit 5b22216e11f7 (nfs: __rcu annotations) added a __rcu annotation to > > > the gc_gss_ctx field. I see no rationale for adding that though, as that > > > field does not seem to be managed via RCU at all. > > > > > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann > > > Cc: Paul McKenney > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > > > Unfortunately, it's been too long ago for me to remember what led to me > > adding it. I also don't see a reason for it in today's code, but I don't > > know if the code has changed, if I made a mistake then, or if it's actually > > needed for some reason I don't see. > > > > Darn, I was hoping you would remember... > > I don't think the code that manipulates this field has changed > substantially since then, but I'm far from certain either. This field > does live in a structure that is RCU managed, so maybe that was part of > the rationale? > > In any case, we're just removing the annotation here so this shouldn't > materially harm anything, AFAICT. > All the annotations I did were the results of building with sparse and looking at the warnings. If you see fewer warnings after your patch than before, than it's moving into the right direction ;-) Arnd