[PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example

[PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example

[Costa Shulyupin]

No such array housekeeping_cpumasks

Fix to housekeeping.cpumasks.

Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com>
---
 Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst b/Documentation/core-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()``)::
 
-	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping_cpumasks[type], trial);
+	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], trial);
 	synchronize_rcu();
 	flush_workqueue(example_workqueue);
 
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example

[Jonathan Corbet]

Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com> writes:

> No such array housekeeping_cpumasks
>
> Fix to housekeeping.cpumasks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst b/Documentation/core-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()``)::
>  
> -	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping_cpumasks[type], trial);
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], trial);
>  	synchronize_rcu();

This looks actively wrong to me.  I think it should be:

  housekeeping_cpumask(type)

... Frederic ... ?

jon

Re: [PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example

[Frederic Weisbecker]

Le Sun, May 03, 2026 at 08:47:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet a écrit :
> Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > No such array housekeeping_cpumasks
> >
> > Fix to housekeeping.cpumasks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst b/Documentation/core-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()``)::
> >  
> > -	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping_cpumasks[type], trial);
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], trial);
> >  	synchronize_rcu();
> 
> This looks actively wrong to me.  I think it should be:
> 
>   housekeeping_cpumask(type)
> 
> ... 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 <frederic@kernel.org>

Thanks!

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs