Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:23:10 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] RCU: introduce rcu_soon_pending() interface |
| |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:09:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > @@ -485,6 +485,14 @@ int rcu_pending(int cpu) > > __rcu_pending(&rcu_bh_ctrlblk, &per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu)); > > } > > > > +int rcu_soon_pending(int cpu) > > +{ > > + struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); > > + struct rcu_data *rdp_bh = &per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu); > > + > > + return (!!rdp->curlist || !!rdp_bh->curlist); > > +} > > This patch sets my nerves a-jangling. > > What are the units of soonness? It's awfully waffly. Can we specify this > more tightly? > > Neither rcu_pending() nor rcu_soon_pending() are commented or documented. > Pity the poor user trying to work out what they do, and how they differ. > They're global symbols and they form part of the RCU API - they should be > kernel docified, please.
Please note that the rcu_pending() interface was never intended for external use -- it is purely internal to the RCU infrastructure. If there is a new external use for rcu_pending(), then it would need to be documented. But I would rather this one stay internal -- different RCU implementations might need different things.
So, what are we trying to do here?
> There's probably a reason why neither of these symbols are exported to > modules. Once they're actually documented I mught be able to work out what > that reason is ;)
The reason for rcu_pending() was that it is a private interface.
Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |