---

yaml
---
r: 110781
b: refs/heads/master
c: e8aed68
h: refs/heads/master
i:
  110779: ff3acc4
v: v3

[refs]

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 ---
-refs/heads/master: 429b022af41108f6942d72547592b1d30e9a51f0
+refs/heads/master: e8aed68614c81f24d8c4cbcb4923f848ece846e1

trunk/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt

@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ release_referenced()			delete()
 					}
 
 If this list/array is made lock free using RCU as in changing the
-write_lock() in add() and delete() to spin_lock and changing read_lock
-in search_and_reference to rcu_read_lock(), the atomic_get in
-search_and_reference could potentially hold reference to an element which
+write_lock() in add() and delete() to spin_lock() and changing read_lock()
+in search_and_reference() to rcu_read_lock(), the atomic_inc() in
+search_and_reference() could potentially hold reference to an element which
 has already been deleted from the list/array.  Use atomic_inc_not_zero()
 in this scenario as follows:
 
@@ -40,20 +40,20 @@ add()					search_and_reference()
 {					{
     alloc_object			    rcu_read_lock();
     ...					    search_for_element
-    atomic_set(&el->rc, 1);		    if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&el->rc)) {
-    write_lock(&list_lock);		        rcu_read_unlock();
+    atomic_set(&el->rc, 1);		    if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&el->rc)) {
+    spin_lock(&list_lock);		        rcu_read_unlock();
 					        return FAIL;
     add_element				    }
     ...					    ...
-    write_unlock(&list_lock);		    rcu_read_unlock();
+    spin_unlock(&list_lock);		    rcu_read_unlock();
 }					}
 3.					4.
 release_referenced()			delete()
 {					{
-    ...					    write_lock(&list_lock);
+    ...					    spin_lock(&list_lock);
     if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))       ...
         call_rcu(&el->head, el_free);       delete_element
-    ...                                     write_unlock(&list_lock);
+    ...                                     spin_unlock(&list_lock);
 } 					    ...
 					    if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
 					        call_rcu(&el->head, el_free);