From: Paul Mckenney <paulmck@agora.rdrop.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@au1.ibm.com,
faith@redhat.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] More comment improvements for RCU primitives
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:21:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040723012136.GA72249@agora.rdrop.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040722112520.6b7a21b9@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:25:20AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:35:15 -0700
> Paul Mckenney <paulmck@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Here is a patch to improve the usefulness of the RCU primitives'
> > documentation. Again, this probably interacts badly with existing
> > RCU patches, which I will fix when I incorporate feedback.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> If you are going to be this verbose (which is good), you may want to
> mention how this interacts on a UP system as well.
Good point...
My first thought would be to add a paragraph saying what happens
on a UP for call_rcu() and synchronize_kernel(), something like
for call_rcu():
This primitive has the same effect on a UP system.
For example, if an RCU read-side critical section
is interrupted by a handler that invokes call_rcu(),
the corresponding update function will be invoked
some time after the RCU read-side critical section
has completed, which will in turn be some time after
the interrupt handler returns.
Does this seem reasonable?
Thanx, Paul
next parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-23 1:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20040720023515.GA84746@agora.rdrop.com>
[not found] ` <20040722112520.6b7a21b9@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
2004-07-23 1:21 ` Paul Mckenney [this message]
2004-07-20 2:46 [RFC][PATCH] More comment improvements for RCU primitives Paul Mckenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040723012136.GA72249@agora.rdrop.com \
--to=paulmck@agora.rdrop.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=faith@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.