From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Doc: Fix wrong API example usage of call_rcu().
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:49:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090307054959.GE10625@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090306132738.15896.2226.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> At some point the API of call_rcu() changed from three parameters
> to two parameters, correct the documentation.
>
> One confusing thing in RCU/listRCU.txt, which is NOT fixed in this patch,
> is that no reason or explaination is given for using call_rcu() instead of
> the normal synchronize_rcu() call.
Good catch!!! Indeed, call_rcu() did take three arguments at one time,
like back in 2.5 days...
On the use of call_rcu() vs. synchronize_rcu(), the two possible reasons
called out in question 8 in Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt are:
1. Update performance is important.
2. Updaters cannot block.
I would welcome a patch to this file discussing this.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
> ---
>
> Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> index 1fd1753..4349c14 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions:
> list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
> if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
> list_del_rcu(&e->list);
> - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
> + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
> return 0;
> }
> }
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows:
> ne->rule.action = newaction;
> ne->rule.file_count = newfield_count;
> list_replace_rcu(e, ne);
> - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
> + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
> return 0;
> }
> }
> @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ flag under the spinlock as follows:
> list_del_rcu(&e->list);
> e->deleted = 1;
> spin_unlock(&e->lock);
> - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
> + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
> return 0;
> }
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-07 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-06 13:27 [PATCH 1/2] Doc: Fix missing whitespaces in RCU documentation Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-06 13:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] Doc: Fix wrong API example usage of call_rcu() Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-07 5:49 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-03-09 0:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-07 5:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] Doc: Fix missing whitespaces in RCU documentation Paul E. 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=20090307054959.GE10625@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hawk@comx.dk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).