Re: [PATCH 01 of 11] mmu-notifier-core

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:35:51 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com> wrote:

> # HG changeset patch
> # User Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>
> # Date 1210096013 -7200
> # Node ID e20917dcc8284b6a07cfcced13dda4cbca850a9c
> # Parent  5026689a3bc323a26d33ad882c34c4c9c9a3ecd8
> mmu-notifier-core
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/list.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ static inline void hlist_del(struct hlis
>   * or hlist_del_rcu(), running on this same list.
>   * However, it is perfectly legal to run concurrently with
>   * the _rcu list-traversal primitives, such as
> - * hlist_for_each_entry().
> + * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu().
>   */
>  static inline void hlist_del_rcu(struct hlist_node *n)
>  {
> @@ -760,6 +760,34 @@ static inline void hlist_del_init(struct
>  	if (!hlist_unhashed(n)) {
>  		__hlist_del(n);
>  		INIT_HLIST_NODE(n);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * hlist_del_init_rcu - deletes entry from hash list with re-initialization
> + * @n: the element to delete from the hash list.
> + *
> + * Note: list_unhashed() on entry does return true after this. It is

Should that be "does" or "does not".  "does", I suppose.

It should refer to hlist_unhashed()

The term "on entry" is a bit ambiguous - we normally use that as shorthand
to mean "on entry to the function".  

So I'll change this to

> + * Note: hlist_unhashed() on the node returns true after this. It is

OK?

<oh, that was copied-and-pasted from similarly errant comments in that file>

> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  #include <linux/rbtree.h>
>  #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>  #include <linux/completion.h>
> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>

OK, unrelated bugfix ;)

> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_SRCU_H
>  #define _LINUX_SRCU_H
>  
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>

And another.  Fair enough.