From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758011Ab2FOVRR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:17:17 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:33924 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751755Ab2FOVRQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:17:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:16:43 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Josh Triplett Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/6] rcu: Update documentation to cover call_srcu() and srcu_barrier(). Message-ID: <20120615211643.GJ2389@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120615185725.GA25163@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1339786674-25265-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120615201911.GA31184@leaf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120615201911.GA31184@leaf> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12061521-6148-0000-0000-000006BD92BE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:19:12PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:57:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt > > @@ -261,8 +261,10 @@ Answers to Quick Quizzes > > > > Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()? > > > > -Answer: Since there is no call_srcu(), there can be no outstanding SRCU > > - callbacks. Therefore, there is no need to wait for them. > > +Answer: There really is an srcu_barrier() now that there is a call_srcu(). > > + Before call_srcu(), there were no SRCU callbacks, and there was > > + therefore no need to wait for them, and therefore there was > > + no srcu_barrier(). > > I don't think it makes sense to leave this question in its current form > and just change the answer. It seems like a trick question now. :) > > I'd suggest just dropping the question and renumbering the remaining > questions. But I -like- trick questions!!! ;-) I will nevertheless update as suggested. Thanx, Paul