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 C50507261C; Sun, 3 May 2026 14:47:04 +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=1777819625; cv=none; b=Wx1xZwPKMQ78QV/ZgJimUuTKYfeUrnA7LEq3CP806mVRTy4a+OXmlE+snhHG1hVbIF65FUu8Drz4fC9vy2QFtDGux/xB2h/b8ojlI5SaMU7Ci0KOr4xN2llDaojjnk2pXSIDm94q6G4t65s5tlF86OTFxSoAsz+npVh5ddblpqM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777819625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fNr7CCGmNQKEsrULQIX6uC4o6Lw+jtTaQTp7cblunbM=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oDdD8C7DzjzAWBMO+GSs6P5VG3n+DxOxPqG7wezrJgcf6uLmI+PmNZcq2DxbT/phARR0hb2NVfY+xtiJ/Q+wwoo0acBCWYNpKbMwP0jKy4zW2OajLR1SGx3P4AQ6Bc2LQW64j01QoSHpDPC0u+VZq32xqP92yUWSbnjVX1aUo7E= 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=a0+P/2g3; 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="a0+P/2g3" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net D9F1141084 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1777819624; bh=SMN2Eewx/CTAvp70lwaK6YexDNASPyDFGYWGrSggTUU=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=a0+P/2g3/27CNSDCL21UEikU8sTyrtGuXBnhQStcUfNL2gXlyw+PkKM6e598v+TWL WWxm6OemisJkNBOjo7cQ0iVCsu3gzxIg6SRKvZbw62JFhcfg7ll24YukFLmv5lSUB5 dj1KPr2iPOQNZ/D7+N+LNkeJDOSquC3PDaNhETFb3YZTP7go3Uq6FRR+Nko+pKKr0A Hn6BUv+QyXCu0Srm20NgGjps0W7x76fyBzkuNaBdf0NkrIvMB+RyTwGg7vE4M9XRk4 bf8MTCDZn9h71Zt6Txyc3bVOcn7aFnBBCcFXwZuQi4vPWUrSZoe+khfr6HuRZ575rO 0KIecm2hFkYJQ== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (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 D9F1141084; Sun, 3 May 2026 14:47:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Costa Shulyupin , Shuah Khan , Ryan Cheevers , Costa Shulyupin , Waiman Long , Frederic Weisbecker , 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: <20260501043855.980567-1-costa.shul@redhat.com> References: <20260501043855.980567-1-costa.shul@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 08:47:01 -0600 Message-ID: <87wlxkczyy.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Costa Shulyupin writes: > 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/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