linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221123183224.GB4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:32:24 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as
 definition-lists

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 06:23:09PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
> as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.
> 
> Adjust them.
> 
> Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>

Applied both, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
> index 5a643e5233d5..9fb9ed777355 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
> @@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1:
>  	Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
>  	be required?
>  
> -Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
> +Answer:
> +	Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
>  	implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using
>  	RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at
>  	filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
> @@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2:
>  	Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero,
>  	thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10?
>  
> -Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
> +Answer:
> +	Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
>  	delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and
>  	the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's
>  	rcu_barrier_func() started executing.  This would result in
> @@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3:
>  	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
>  	rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
>  
> -Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
> +Answer:
> +	This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
>  	argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through
>  	to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
>  	causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of
> 
> base-commit: 741cfda870057958c53f9cb0b21ac33f531baaf4
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>