Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/4] docs: Update RCU's hotplug requirements with a bit about design

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:05:08PM -0800, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> 
> The rcu_barrier() section of the "Hotplug CPU" section discusses
> deadlocks, however the description of deadlocks other than those involving
> rcu_barrier() is rather incomplete.
> 
> This commit therefore continues the section by describing how RCU's
> design handles CPU hotplug in a deadlock-free way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst       | 49 +++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> index 1ae79a1..98557fe 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
> @@ -1929,16 +1929,45 @@ The Linux-kernel CPU-hotplug implementation has notifiers that are used
>  to allow the various kernel subsystems (including RCU) to respond
>  appropriately to a given CPU-hotplug operation. Most RCU operations may
>  be invoked from CPU-hotplug notifiers, including even synchronous
> -grace-period operations such as ``synchronize_rcu()`` and
> -``synchronize_rcu_expedited()``.

I was under the impression that this rst crap now recognises func() and
you no longer need to make the text unreadable with "``".