linux-kernel - [tip:core/rcu] rcu: Clean up code based on review feedback from Josh Triplett, part 3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <tip-3d76c082907e8f83c5d5c4572f38d53ad8f00c4b@git.kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:09:55 GMT
From:	"tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: [tip:core/rcu] rcu: Clean up code based on review feedback from Josh Triplett, part 3

Commit-ID:  3d76c082907e8f83c5d5c4572f38d53ad8f00c4b
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/3d76c082907e8f83c5d5c4572f38d53ad8f00c4b
Author:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
AuthorDate: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:46:32 -0700
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:02:02 +0200

rcu: Clean up code based on review feedback from Josh Triplett, part 3

Whitespace fixes, updated comments, and trivial code movement.

o	Fix whitespace error in RCU_HEAD_INIT()

o	Move "So where is rcu_write_lock()" comment so that it does
	not come between the rcu_read_unlock() header comment and
	the rcu_read_unlock() definition.

o	Move the module_param statements for blimit, qhimark, and
	qlowmark to immediately follow the corresponding
	definitions.

o	In __rcu_offline_cpu(), move the assignment to rdp_me
	inside the "if" statement, given that rdp_me is not used
	outside of that "if" statement.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: laijs@...fujitsu.com
Cc: dipankar@...ibm.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org
Cc: dvhltc@...ibm.com
Cc: niv@...ibm.com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com
LKML-Reference: <12541491931164-git-send-email->
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>


---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h |   14 +++++++-------
 kernel/rcutree.c         |   10 +++++-----
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 7033121..3ebd0b7 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ extern int rcu_scheduler_active;
 #error "Unknown RCU implementation specified to kernel configuration"
 #endif
 
-#define RCU_HEAD_INIT 	{ .next = NULL, .func = NULL }
+#define RCU_HEAD_INIT	{ .next = NULL, .func = NULL }
 #define RCU_HEAD(head) struct rcu_head head = RCU_HEAD_INIT
 #define INIT_RCU_HEAD(ptr) do { \
        (ptr)->next = NULL; (ptr)->func = NULL; \
@@ -129,12 +129,6 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
 	rcu_read_acquire();
 }
 
-/**
- * rcu_read_unlock - marks the end of an RCU read-side critical section.
- *
- * See rcu_read_lock() for more information.
- */
-
 /*
  * So where is rcu_write_lock()?  It does not exist, as there is no
  * way for writers to lock out RCU readers.  This is a feature, not
@@ -144,6 +138,12 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
  * used as well.  RCU does not care how the writers keep out of each
  * others' way, as long as they do so.
  */
+
+/**
+ * rcu_read_unlock - marks the end of an RCU read-side critical section.
+ *
+ * See rcu_read_lock() for more information.
+ */
 static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
 {
 	rcu_read_release();
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 81af59b..d559783 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -122,6 +122,10 @@ static int blimit = 10;		/* Maximum callbacks per softirq. */
 static int qhimark = 10000;	/* If this many pending, ignore blimit. */
 static int qlowmark = 100;	/* Once only this many pending, use blimit. */
 
+module_param(blimit, int, 0);
+module_param(qhimark, int, 0);
+module_param(qlowmark, int, 0);
+
 static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed);
 static int rcu_pending(int cpu);
 
@@ -878,8 +882,8 @@ static void __rcu_offline_cpu(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp)
 	 * indefinitely delay callbacks, you have far worse things to
 	 * be worrying about.
 	 */
-	rdp_me = rsp->rda[smp_processor_id()];
 	if (rdp->nxtlist != NULL) {
+		rdp_me = rsp->rda[smp_processor_id()];
 		*rdp_me->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxtlist;
 		rdp_me->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL];
 		rdp->nxtlist = NULL;
@@ -1575,7 +1579,3 @@ void __init __rcu_init(void)
 }
 
 #include "rcutree_plugin.h"
-
-module_param(blimit, int, 0);
-module_param(qhimark, int, 0);
-module_param(qlowmark, int, 0);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/