[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120615201911.GA31184@leaf>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:19:12 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/6] rcu: Update documentation to cover
call_srcu() and srcu_barrier().
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:57:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
> @@ -261,8 +261,10 @@ Answers to Quick Quizzes
>
> Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()?
>
> -Answer: Since there is no call_srcu(), there can be no outstanding SRCU
> - callbacks. Therefore, there is no need to wait for them.
> +Answer: There really is an srcu_barrier() now that there is a call_srcu().
> + Before call_srcu(), there were no SRCU callbacks, and there was
> + therefore no need to wait for them, and therefore there was
> + no srcu_barrier().
I don't think it makes sense to leave this question in its current form
and just change the answer. It seems like a trick question now. :)
I'd suggest just dropping the question and renumbering the remaining
questions.
- Josh Triplett
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists