Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/15] rcu: Increasing rcu_barrier() concurrency

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

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