* Re: [PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example
[not found] ` <87wlxkczyy.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
@ 2026-05-12 13:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2026-05-12 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Costa Shulyupin, Shuah Khan, Ryan Cheevers, Waiman Long,
linux-doc, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread