From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ZA4OCNRit2hcmRIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:34:12 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lists.lttng.org header.i=@lists.lttng.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=XHphcYdT; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 118D41E087; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:34:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [158.69.130.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8991E057 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:34:09 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4cGfBm3JpDz1BhC ARC-Seal: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1756848848; b=mqpOc9xdUcvnASvWdy5GDLYBVZhl5oQBGoPcOT4idG44/Blr9blS4LeOvLN+RVTiCOah FasOoqua41SBEqV+GeSqszv6IIsPIZq4lM+lcqn326K1C/43Urjh/0f0AQDOsRZNl6xds v+ERwsYtQL1GLtj1pWmS2fxFBqMIopZxII/ISYf+FRF2nMZ0wtLcLXKT/L/xFNPtVgDAX a35fBYpKauxaqydRdG9Wr9g4PafmmOnjsqj6Ti7Ui5buORssXO4l6CuU8LvxUZS17Y1V1 oZrLI+RVHW1bGo9zpZbAf6j+e+Oi6/dYRu3it0SONXRutqU+3Envjg56SyNw8LqiXmQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; t=1756848848; h=DKIM-Signature:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To:From:From; bh=HVTesPcG/F+BpHlmTPVWJ/RXvS+AEdGLRjGmjUBugdI=; b=EHEzEUp53dsJjysh+eNcJ9BSY9uEXib86R2awWJjA6E2NEe2r6hogcmK1omypwOqqMdO s+BE5WWoShdvtVQun1/YsMCQBX7TLSjHk2U0uy6RhPHjjF9OyKdiy2dO0qe69pDi9xEOH ji/YRrEu6v//KTSj1wqg7oN3AcnoaSPQgC0FcQ+CJGI1v8kRRTeAPRwrO7BOCZ2/LwWeK J0Vraj47SJ4q6rxZvSFVUJqU30j4UcAMvbEUTcP1K9q4Nwz0mjVZhvH1jBixIApQ7eqlv kWvnQ46XI7UojwmqIcTQdolujywTyslBZVYL1y4fGnQmLuSVZ5pRZrjT4yOQfBNpLOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.lttng.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="::1" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4cGfBm3JpDz1BhC DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1756848848; bh=HVTesPcG/F+BpHlmTPVWJ/RXvS+AEdGLRjGmjUBugdI=; h=Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=XHphcYdTKcU3J7f7BMcOoiAR5psymxKzvy2Tv79rGBr2oxyUhXpWYcwiNLhJmqLcU NlL2Zo1uLr7xATxHPHfe5wUd8N+m7I6CGnhME1DxgFxvM6naMmpLgqgUARqcx/CiQ4 B9+HWMgPij7Iq2a6jwnOaV7WWEOSMSSCd+BTF15z4x8/Qu9AmJPpEgSbtgOiSNWGia FscL1EKkvv4ik2A9R45Qb2WiPeinht1C3aXQtx0LP6eswty6bd3TEgTgiNyWjDEPw2 F7XVxDlFXX5mtJQCH6wfjGkRV/01ywMWgSYxK4qduQymvFZEJpg79Lx3rDEHlZsTAG 6CQAyKZVYEz/Q== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cGfBm3JpDz1BhC; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:34:08 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4cGfBl2Bjjz1CTy DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4cGfBl2Bjjz1CTy Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cGfBl2Bjjz1CTy for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E435A1400114; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:34:04 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddufeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghi lhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurh eptggguffhjgffvefgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpefqnhgurhgvjhcu ufhurhpuuceoohhnughrvghjsehsuhhrhidrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepje dvtddvledufeetueevjeeuheeukeduudfhkeethfeitdefudffkeeffeevkeevnecuvehl uhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepohhnughrvghjse hsuhhrhidrohhrghdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepvddpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhr tghpthhtohepthhhohgskhhnuhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehlthhtnh hgqdguvghvsehlihhsthhsrdhlthhtnhhgrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ida81469e:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.100.1.1.5\)) Subject: Re: URCU feature request? In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 23:33:50 +0200 Cc: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3c49eadb-f310-46b2-984d-58a0c193cde9@efficios.com> <2f0dc1b4-3fcb-453c-aa42-4a1f85623300@paulmck-laptop> To: Thobias Knudsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.100.1.1.5) X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: =?utf-8?q?Ond=C5=99ej_Sur=C3=BD_via_lttng-dev?= Reply-To: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" If I understand you correctly, you can do something like this: #undef rcu_read_lock #define rcu_read_lock() urcu_memb_read_lock(); { #undef rcu_read_unlock #define rcu_read_lock() } urcu_memb_read_unlock(); (replace memb with your RCU variant of course) and make your code declare all the RCU protected pointers inside the RCU = critical section, e.g. rcu_read_lock(); my_pointer *foo =3D rcu_dereference(...); use(foo); /* valid */ rcu_read_unlock(); use(foo); /* invalid and caught by the compiler */ Ondrej -- Ond=C5=99ej Sur=C3=BD (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org > On 2. 9. 2025, at 23:06, Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev = wrote: >=20 > Yes, that is what I'm worried about. For my case when using URCU that = is my biggest concern, as the debug macro "library" I made checks = everything else, if I haven't overlooked anything. >=20