Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2008 13:02:14 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01 of 11] mmu-notifier-core |
| |
On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:35:51 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com> wrote:
> # HG changeset patch > # User Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com> > # Date 1210096013 -7200 > # Node ID e20917dcc8284b6a07cfcced13dda4cbca850a9c > # Parent 5026689a3bc323a26d33ad882c34c4c9c9a3ecd8 > mmu-notifier-core > > ... > > --- a/include/linux/list.h > +++ b/include/linux/list.h > @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ static inline void hlist_del(struct hlis > * or hlist_del_rcu(), running on this same list. > * However, it is perfectly legal to run concurrently with > * the _rcu list-traversal primitives, such as > - * hlist_for_each_entry(). > + * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(). > */ > static inline void hlist_del_rcu(struct hlist_node *n) > { > @@ -760,6 +760,34 @@ static inline void hlist_del_init(struct > if (!hlist_unhashed(n)) { > __hlist_del(n); > INIT_HLIST_NODE(n); > + } > +} > + > +/** > + * hlist_del_init_rcu - deletes entry from hash list with re-initialization > + * @n: the element to delete from the hash list. > + * > + * Note: list_unhashed() on entry does return true after this. It is
Should that be "does" or "does not". "does", I suppose.
It should refer to hlist_unhashed()
The term "on entry" is a bit ambiguous - we normally use that as shorthand to mean "on entry to the function".
So I'll change this to
> + * Note: hlist_unhashed() on the node returns true after this. It is
OK?
<oh, that was copied-and-pasted from similarly errant comments in that file>
> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > #include <linux/rbtree.h> > #include <linux/rwsem.h> > #include <linux/completion.h> > +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
OK, unrelated bugfix ;)
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ > #ifndef _LINUX_SRCU_H > #define _LINUX_SRCU_H > > +#include <linux/mutex.h>
And another. Fair enough.
| |