From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:44:54 +0200
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 01:05:51PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> >> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:02:10 +0200 >> >> > We never use RCU protection for it, just a lot of cargo-cult >> > rcu_deference_protects calls. >> > >> > Note that we do keep the kfree_rcu call for it, as the references through >> > struct sock are RCU protected and thus might require a grace period before >> > freeing. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> >> >> These were added by Eric Dumazet and I would never accuse him of cargo >> cult programming. >> >> All of the rcu_dereference_protects() calls are legit, even though some >> of them use '1' as the protects condition because in fact we know the >> object is dead and gone through an RCU cycle at that point. > > I disagree, but I'll resend it the patch with Eric and Paul in CC to > settle the argument. Thank you.
