[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r2jpmqu2.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:04:37 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion.
On Wed, Jul 25 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>> Looks good ... except ... naming is hard.
>>
>> is_after_call_rcu_init() asserts where in the lifecycle we are,
>> is_after_call_rcu() tests where in the lifecycle we are.
>>
>> The names are similar but the purpose is quite different.
>> Maybe s/is_after_call_rcu_init/call_rcu_init/ ??
>
> How about rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu()?
Yes, I like those.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists