On Sunday 07 March 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 10:45:00AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:00:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

Arnd, would it be reasonable to extend your RCU-sparse changes to have
four different pointer namespaces, one for each flavor of RCU?  (RCU,
RCU-bh, RCU-sched, and SRCU)?  Always a fan of making the computer do
the auditing where reasonable.  ;-)

This could potentially catch the mismatched call_rcu()s, at least if the
rcu_head could be labeled.

Other thoughts?

I've just tried annotating net/ipv4/route.c like this and did not get
very far, because the same pointers are used for rcu and rcu_bh.
Could you check if this is a false positive or an actual finding?

	Arnd