[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151007162427.GO3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:24:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/18] rcu: Switch
synchronize_sched_expedited() to IPI
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 04:18:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:29:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > @@ -161,6 +161,8 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf);
> > static void rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity(struct rcu_node *rnp, int outgoingcpu);
> > static void invoke_rcu_core(void);
> > static void invoke_rcu_callbacks(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp);
> > +static void __maybe_unused rcu_report_exp_rdp(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> > + struct rcu_data *rdp, bool wake);
> >
>
> Do we really need that on a declaration? I though only unused
> definitions required it.
You are right. I should have removed it in commit 4684e21b19e9 ("rcu:
Switch synchronize_sched_expedited() to IPI"), fixed.
Thanx, Paul
--
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