From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758160AbYBKV04 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:26:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753416AbYBKV0t (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:26:49 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.229]:44389 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753075AbYBKV0s (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:26:48 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=c8RxeIuIPvqbTHiLDWynbP/EseLhnCV8ZJQrKDo8ZEw+vjEG6dPY0NbdYQT870B35qjJqr3827VhwPonfTsYZFCJOilJ97hlZCD4YlyxxX8NgYD3G+pNQ7aOvbwkFmB1Jd9giB7WDx2W/Ox1p7gyIBo417Kr9AYeAYzQCV/qWzQ= Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall From: Harvey Harrison To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" In-Reply-To: <20080211131738.dda66683.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1202755123.6313.16.camel@brick> <20080211131738.dda66683.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:26:44 -0800 Message-Id: <1202765204.10004.18.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 13:17 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800 > Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring > > to them. > > I'm still showing occurrences in: > > ./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt > ./Documentation/kprobes.txt > ./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt > ./kernel/rcupdate.c > > The last one is interesting: > > /* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */ > static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) > { > struct rcu_synchronize *rcu; > > rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head); > complete(&rcu->completion); > } > > The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying > to tell us that we can remove this function now? Sorry, I added that as a note in my patch to look into and ended up forgetting about it. The original comment that was there read: /* Because of FASTCALL declaration of complete, we use this wrapper */ Sorry about that, I'll look into the last occurances and send you a patch 4/3. Harvey