From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752859AbVHGVx7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:53:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752860AbVHGVx7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:53:59 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.202]:36600 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752859AbVHGVx6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:53:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=BmMdWjeJeoICfjxfjL8Q6OwGPlPVuU5wOXYHjnRYeIQiQ3miMOrFbOSkybaQRGadGPABqfIMMUyev19CZ2QqmeWZz6niV9qaBuvI6fD3vSu840V4NjiYrUhIpJW/gVARCPfnZc/zW5ZbKS9E1ueCSo69PYZ+VXehv6CJjW4EyAk= Message-ID: <42F682AE.2010803@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:52:46 -0400 From: Keenan Pepper User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: synchronize_rcu vs. rcu_barrier References: <42F66E81.2020807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42F66E81.2020807@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > What's the difference between synchronize_rcu() and rcu_barrier() (new > function used only by reiser4 code)? From the scant documentation it > seems like they do the same thing. I'm now happily running 2.6.13-rc4-rt-v0.7.52-14-reiser4 which I compiled by adding #define rcu_barrier synchronize_rcu so there must not be that much difference =) (at least on UP, that is). Keenan