Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:49:31 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/15] rcu: Increasing rcu_barrier() concurrency |
| |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:21:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 16:31 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > - smp_mb(); /* Prevent any prior operations from leaking in. */ > > > + /* > > > + * Ensure tht all prior references, including to ->n_barrier_done, > > > + * are ordered before the _rcu_barrier() machinery. > > > + */ > > > + smp_mb(); /* See above block comment. */ > > > > If checkpatch complains about the lack of a comment to the right of a > > barrier even when the barrier has a comment directly above it, that > > seems like a bug in checkpatch that needs fixing, to prevent developers > > from having to add noise like "See above block comment.". :) > > > Yuck yuck yuck yuck!!! > > > Really, checkpatch is not the golden rule. I've copied an old checkpatch > from something like 2.6.38 or so and use that today, where it was still > reasonable. I've long abandoned the latest checkpatch, as it causes too > many false positives. Or nazis like dictation. > > My rule of thumb is this. If what checkpatch tells you to do makes the > format either uglier, or look stupid, it's a good idea to ignore the > checkpatch complaint. > > I think in this case, you hit the latter.
Heh. I have been doing this "/* See above block comment. */" thing for quite some time. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |