Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:17:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
> Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
> > to them.
>
> I'm still showing occurrences in:
>
> ./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
> ./Documentation/kprobes.txt
> ./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
> ./kernel/rcupdate.c
>
> The last one is interesting:
>
> /* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
> static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> {
> struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
>
> rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> complete(>completion);
> }
>
> The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
> to tell us that we can remove this function now?
Hmmm... A better comment might be something like "Awaken the
corresponding synchronize_rcu() instance now that a grace period has
completed". Given that the underlying RCU implementation provides
callbacks, synchronize_rcu() will need some sort of callback function.
So, the question is whether "complete()" can be that callback function.
As near as I can tell, the answer is "no", because the RCU callback
function always gets a pointer to a struct rcu_head, which would not
make much sense to the "complete()" function.
In short, I believe that wakeme_after_rcu() needs to stick around.
A better comment for wakeme_after_rcu() would be good, perhaps as shown below.
Thanx, Paul
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
rcupdate.c |5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.24/kernel/rcupdate.c
linux-2.6.24-wakeme-comment/kernel/rcupdate.c
--- linux-2.6.24/kernel/rcupdate.c 2008-01-24 14:58:37.0 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.24-wakeme-comment/kernel/rcupdate.c 2008-02-11
17:47:11.0 -0800
@@ -601,7 +601,10 @@ struct rcu_synchronize {
struct completion completion;
};
-/* Because of FASTCALL declaration of complete, we use this wrapper */
+/*
+ * Awaken the corresponding synchronize_rcu() instance now that a
+ * grace period has elapsed.
+ */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 13:17 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
> Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
> > to them.
>
> I'm still showing occurrences in:
>
> ./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
> ./Documentation/kprobes.txt
> ./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
> ./kernel/rcupdate.c
>
> The last one is interesting:
>
> /* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
> static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> {
> struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
>
> rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> complete(>completion);
> }
>
> The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
> to tell us that we can remove this function now?
Sorry, I added that as a note in my patch to look into and ended up
forgetting about it.
The original comment that was there read:
/* Because of FASTCALL declaration of complete, we use this wrapper */
Sorry about that, I'll look into the last occurances and send you a
patch 4/3.
Harvey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
> to them.
I'm still showing occurrences in:
./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
./Documentation/kprobes.txt
./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
./kernel/rcupdate.c
The last one is interesting:
/* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
complete(>completion);
}
The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
to tell us that we can remove this function now?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 13:17 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
to them.
I'm still showing occurrences in:
./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
./Documentation/kprobes.txt
./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
./kernel/rcupdate.c
The last one is interesting:
/* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
complete(rcu-completion);
}
The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
to tell us that we can remove this function now?
Sorry, I added that as a note in my patch to look into and ended up
forgetting about it.
The original comment that was there read:
/* Because of FASTCALL declaration of complete, we use this wrapper */
Sorry about that, I'll look into the last occurances and send you a
patch 4/3.
Harvey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
to them.
I'm still showing occurrences in:
./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
./Documentation/kprobes.txt
./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
./kernel/rcupdate.c
The last one is interesting:
/* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
complete(rcu-completion);
}
The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
to tell us that we can remove this function now?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] Final removal of FASTCALL()/fastcall
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:17:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:42 -0800
Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All users are gone, remove definitions and comments referring
to them.
I'm still showing occurrences in:
./Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
./Documentation/kprobes.txt
./Documentation/uml/UserModeLinux-HOWTO.txt
./kernel/rcupdate.c
The last one is interesting:
/* FASTCALL no longer exists, this wrapper may no longer be needed */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
rcu = container_of(head, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
complete(rcu-completion);
}
The comment is rather ungrammatical/meaningless. Perhaps it is trying
to tell us that we can remove this function now?
Hmmm... A better comment might be something like Awaken the
corresponding synchronize_rcu() instance now that a grace period has
completed. Given that the underlying RCU implementation provides
callbacks, synchronize_rcu() will need some sort of callback function.
So, the question is whether complete() can be that callback function.
As near as I can tell, the answer is no, because the RCU callback
function always gets a pointer to a struct rcu_head, which would not
make much sense to the complete() function.
In short, I believe that wakeme_after_rcu() needs to stick around.
A better comment for wakeme_after_rcu() would be good, perhaps as shown below.
Thanx, Paul
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
rcupdate.c |5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.24/kernel/rcupdate.c
linux-2.6.24-wakeme-comment/kernel/rcupdate.c
--- linux-2.6.24/kernel/rcupdate.c 2008-01-24 14:58:37.0 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.24-wakeme-comment/kernel/rcupdate.c 2008-02-11
17:47:11.0 -0800
@@ -601,7 +601,10 @@ struct rcu_synchronize {
struct completion completion;
};
-/* Because of FASTCALL declaration of complete, we use this wrapper */
+/*
+ * Awaken the corresponding synchronize_rcu() instance now that a
+ * grace period has elapsed.
+ */
static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
