fs: file: Replace rcu_assign_pointer() with RCU_INIT_POINTER()
PATCH 1/1 fs: file: Replace rcu_assign_pointer() with RCU_INIT_POINTER()
The uses of "rcu_assign_pointer()" are NULLing out the pointers. According to RCU_INIT_POINTER()'s block comment:
"1. This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer"
it is better to use it instead of rcu_assign_pointer() because it has a smaller overhead.
The following Coccinelle semantic patch was used:
@@
@@
- rcu_assign_pointer
+ RCU_INIT_POINTER
(..., NULL)
Signed-off-by Andreea-Cristina Bernat <[email protected]>
--- fs/file.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
fs/file.c +3 -3
@@ -491,7 +491,7 @@ repeat:/* Sanity check */ if (rcu_access_pointer (fdt->fd[fd]) !=NULL ) {printk (KERN_WARNING "alloc_fd: slot %d not NULL!\n" , fd); -rcu_assign_pointer (fdt->fd[fd],NULL ); +RCU_INIT_POINTER (fdt->fd[fd],NULL ); }#endif
@@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ int __close_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd) file = fdt->fd[fd];if (!file) goto out_unlock; -rcu_assign_pointer (fdt->fd[fd],NULL ); +RCU_INIT_POINTER (fdt->fd[fd],NULL );__clear_close_on_exec (fd, fdt);__put_unused_fd (files, fd);spin_unlock (&files->file_lock);
@@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ void do_close_on_exec(struct files_struct *files) file = fdt->fd[fd];if (!file)continue ; -rcu_assign_pointer (fdt->fd[fd],NULL ); +RCU_INIT_POINTER (fdt->fd[fd],NULL );__put_unused_fd (files, fd);spin_unlock (&files->file_lock);filp_close (file, files);
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1