From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:23:09 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b74e2e19-0317-e717-cc15-a7854b04adf4@gmail.com> (raw)
The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.
Adjust them.
Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
index 5a643e5233d5..9fb9ed777355 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
@@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1:
Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
be required?
-Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
+Answer:
+ Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using
RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at
filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
@@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2:
Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero,
thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10?
-Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
+Answer:
+ Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and
the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's
rcu_barrier_func() started executing. This would result in
@@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3:
are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
-Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
+Answer:
+ This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through
to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of
base-commit: 741cfda870057958c53f9cb0b21ac33f531baaf4
--
2.25.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-11-23 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-23 9:23 Akira Yokosawa [this message]
2022-11-23 9:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Right-adjust line numbers in code snippets Akira Yokosawa
2022-11-23 18:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b74e2e19-0317-e717-cc15-a7854b04adf4@gmail.com \
--to=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®