[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130820041054.GX29406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:10:54 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc: dipankar@...ibm.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/rcutree.c: deem to be lazy if there are no
callbacks.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:50:02AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> According to the comment above rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(): "If there are
> no callbacks, all of them are deemed to be lazy".
>
> So when both 'hc' and 'al' are false, '*all_lazy' should be true, not
> false.
If there are no callbacks, what must the value of "al" be at this
point in the code? Given this, what is the effect of your patch?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 5b53a89..9ee9565 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -2725,7 +2725,7 @@ static int rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(int cpu, bool *all_lazy)
> hc = true;
> }
> if (all_lazy)
> - *all_lazy = al;
> + *all_lazy = !hc ? true : al;
> return hc;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.7.6
>
--
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