[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5625E9E1.1020200@monom.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:14:41 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rcu: use simple wait queues where possible in
rcutree
Hi Paul,
On 10/20/2015 01:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:43:21AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
>> @@ -4178,7 +4178,8 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - init_waitqueue_head(&rsp->gp_wq);
>> + rsp->rda = rda;
>
> This is initialized at compile time in current mainline, so the above
> statement is not needed.
I accidentally forward ported this from 3.10.
> But now that you mention it, the second parameter to rcu_init_one() is
> a bit pointless these days. I have queued a patch eliminating it,
> which should not conflict with our patch.
Glad I can help :)
I am about to send an updated version of this series containing which
swaps this patch with #4 to avoid lockdep warning while doing bissect.
Obviously, the above statement will be gone as well.
cheers,
daniel
--
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