On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:

Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

Hello!

While reviewing rcu_dereference() uses, I came across a number of cases
where I couldn't see how the rcu_dereference() helped.  One class of
cases is where the variable is never subsequently dereferenced, so that
patches like the following one would be appropriate.

So, what am I missing here?

Nothing, it was mainly intended as documentation that the hooks are
protected by RCU. I agree that its probably more confusing this way
since we're not even in a rcu_read_lock protected section.

I've queued a patch to remove them all.

Thank you!!!

						Thanx, Paul