[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200501190555.GB7560@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 12:05:55 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/24] rcu/tree: Use consistent style for comments
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:58:42PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>
> Simple clean up of comments in kfree_rcu() code to keep it consistent
> with majority of commenting styles.
>
> Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
Hmmm...
Exactly why is three additional characters per line preferable? Or in
the case of block comments, either one or two additional lines, depending
on /* */ style?
I am (slowly) moving RCU to "//" for those reasons. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index cd61649e1b00..1487af8e11e8 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3043,15 +3043,15 @@ static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> static inline void kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> unsigned long flags)
> {
> - // Attempt to start a new batch.
> + /* Attempt to start a new batch. */
> krcp->monitor_todo = false;
> if (queue_kfree_rcu_work(krcp)) {
> - // Success! Our job is done here.
> + /* Success! Our job is done here. */
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
> return;
> }
>
> - // Previous RCU batch still in progress, try again later.
> + /* Previous RCU batch still in progress, try again later. */
> krcp->monitor_todo = true;
> schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags);
> @@ -3151,14 +3151,14 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> unsigned long flags;
> struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
>
> - local_irq_save(flags); // For safely calling this_cpu_ptr().
> + local_irq_save(flags); /* For safely calling this_cpu_ptr(). */
> krcp = this_cpu_ptr(&krc);
> if (krcp->initialized)
> raw_spin_lock(&krcp->lock);
>
> - // Queue the object but don't yet schedule the batch.
> + /* Queue the object but don't yet schedule the batch. */
> if (debug_rcu_head_queue(head)) {
> - // Probable double kfree_rcu(), just leak.
> + /* Probable double kfree_rcu(), just leak. */
> WARN_ONCE(1, "%s(): Double-freed call. rcu_head %p\n",
> __func__, head);
> goto unlock_return;
> @@ -3176,7 +3176,7 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
>
> WRITE_ONCE(krcp->count, krcp->count + 1);
>
> - // Set timer to drain after KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES.
> + /* Set timer to drain after KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES. */
> if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
> !krcp->monitor_todo) {
> krcp->monitor_todo = true;
> @@ -3722,7 +3722,7 @@ int rcutree_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>
> rcutree_affinity_setting(cpu, cpu);
>
> - // nohz_full CPUs need the tick for stop-machine to work quickly
> + /* nohz_full CPUs need the tick for stop-machine to work quickly */
> tick_dep_set(TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists