| Message ID | b74e2e19-0317-e717-cc15-a7854b04adf4@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 29bc19ce02016d0ba4682c4e58de469377a6bc2d |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists | expand |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 06:23:09PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > 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> Applied both, thank you! Thanx, Paul > --- > 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 >
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
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(-) base-commit: 741cfda870057958c53f9cb0b21ac33f531baaf4