linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] docs/rcu: Update the call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201110143729.GQ3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 06:37:29 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] docs/rcu: Update the call_rcu() API

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:25:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:20:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 01:24:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:05:10PM -0800, paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> > > > From: Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
> > > > 
> > > > This commit updates the documented API of call_rcu() to use the
> > > > rcu_callback_t typedef instead of the open-coded function definition.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@....com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst | 3 +--
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > > > index fb3ff76..1a4723f 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > > > @@ -497,8 +497,7 @@ long -- there might be other high-priority work to be done.
> > > >  In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu().
> > > >  The call_rcu() API is as follows::
> > > >  
> > > > -	void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head,
> > > > -		      void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
> > > > +	void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
> > > 
> > > Personally I much prefer the old form, because now I have to go look up
> > > rcu_callback_t to figure out wtf kind of signature is actually required.
> > 
> > How about if this part of the documentation read as follows:
> > 
> > 	typedef void (*rcu_callback_t)(struct rcu_head *head);
> > 	void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
> > 
> > Wold that help?
> 
> Sure; but now it's more verbose than it was ;-)

Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul