From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E30B3A7F4A; Fri, 15 May 2026 14:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778855147; cv=none; b=ej53+0Nuv+tH0nYTrcMJSzpkmW5e5UqFEnnw8qKNL4jh6X93TscN2oiq6z5djEVP/ghHIckF+M1dsuEwkMSqZ9Ozvwv9Krii8OMF4yzw58kJ75YUOKh1PuYKrxilNasBjB1CP8xdIwgFUuWxA86Lb3S7SYMacn7SRSpXiPv2vmE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778855147; c=relaxed/simple; bh=96o3cdvGPS5Xe62c/suk0phFsRwGUqp4fy3N+KjEyws=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HL869LmDVo6ZIqct8pwtpR6fjqs9VuyOfiG1Hdq8fFNrq2GqMjsbfjImPdzYdxyM/SfvhYCbUJwmyT3e08XZAorQjvdqNLUlelKktC1CapLzbyFl3TSvuw1aAMLA0d0AFHwiQsVeqSeKWO3l3UzHbu0aBcY/lQGPPK7xm4v1pow= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=tVnAfO71; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="tVnAfO71" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 46912410B5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1778855143; bh=0HTXufkJYMGhYK+gGEUIo0j7Bw+/wGaonu9tKsd5fGk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=tVnAfO71iDiNOkdrwP1oINCzSb5/DpXcNSb/2ffStQeEDm2MZBXry/ikgS5pQSshP ZC79t9nHiv4kj+PCDTHVo40POfql8clq44lrdy2KrbQNIgq5oZXXOv+NklL+REP0XK GVTHSG8SdirSs98+Fd1qM5wqABFFJhg+ayC+fIh0xrHQGXuorhPYSDVOzXH64Fspc0 fSNSSNsGa6YzTtxpkN3SYF2o8KhSgnFvo/TRBy5kHrsPlp6mtOqIiea/FtyaA7UlIG 4vtcBwSYVFLanQGyVAC3aN3l46dQ1lU3s1J8beawPTJKWbRsyiaiyYjU5BbYnx0QkD DlrFflo2L404g== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b:67c:16ff:fe81:5f9b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46912410B5; Fri, 15 May 2026 14:25:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Costa Shulyupin , Shuah Khan , Ryan Cheevers , Waiman Long , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example In-Reply-To: References: <20260501043855.980567-1-costa.shul@redhat.com> <87wlxkczyy.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 08:25:42 -0600 Message-ID: <875x4orbq1.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frederic Weisbecker writes: > Le Sun, May 03, 2026 at 08:47:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet a =C3=A9crit : >> Costa Shulyupin writes: >>=20 >> > No such array housekeeping_cpumasks >> > >> > Fix to housekeeping.cpumasks. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin >> > --- >> > Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst b/Documentation/c= ore-api/housekeeping.rst >> > index 92c6e53cea75..ccb0a88b9cb3 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst >> > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst >> > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ the same RCU read side critical section. >> > A typical layout example would look like this on the update side >> > (``housekeeping_update()``):: >> >=20=20 >> > - rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping_cpumasks[type], trial); >> > + rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], trial); >> > synchronize_rcu(); >>=20 >> This looks actively wrong to me. I think it should be: >>=20 >> housekeeping_cpumask(type) >>=20 >> ... Frederic ... ? > > No, Costa is right, housekeeping.cpumasks[type] is where we store > the pointer. housekeeping_cpumask(type) is only an accessor. > > So: > > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker OK, then, applied, thanks. jon