From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752600AbbJTHVy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:21:54 -0400
Received: from hotel311.server4you.de ([85.25.146.15]:57514 "EHLO
	hotel311.server4you.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752420AbbJTHVE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:21:04 -0400
X-Greylist: delayed 377 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:21:03 EDT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rcu: use simple wait queues where possible in
 rcutree
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
References: <1444808602-29500-1-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
 <1444808602-29500-4-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
 <20151019233157.GD5105@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5625E9E1.1020200@monom.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:14:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151019233157.GD5105@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Paul,

On 10/20/2015 01:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:43:21AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
>> @@ -4178,7 +4178,8 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp,
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>
>> -	init_waitqueue_head(&rsp->gp_wq);
>> +	rsp->rda = rda;
> 
> This is initialized at compile time in current mainline, so the above
> statement is not needed.

I accidentally forward ported this from 3.10.

> But now that you mention it, the second parameter to rcu_init_one() is
> a bit pointless these days.  I have queued a patch eliminating it,
> which should not conflict with our patch.

Glad I can help :)

I am about to send an updated version of this series containing which
swaps this patch with #4 to avoid lockdep warning while doing bissect.
Obviously, the above statement will be gone as well.

cheers,
daniel