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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox