On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:37:54AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:15:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > Also in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, we call:
> > > trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
> > > needmore ? TPS("CleanupMore") : TPS("Cleanup"));
> > > For this case, in the final trace event record, rnp->completed and c will
> > > be
> > > the same, since c is set to rnp->completed before calling
> > > trace_rcu_future_gp. I was thinking they should be different, do you
> > > expect
> > > them to be the same?
> >
> > Hmmm... That does look a bit inconsistent. And it currently uses
> > rnp->gp_seq instead of rnp->gp_seq_needed despite having the same
> > "CleanupMore" name.
> >
> > Looks like a review of the calls to trace_rcu_this_gp() is in order.
>
> I see you changed trace_rcu_future_gp to use trace_rcu_this_gp in 15/21.. I
> am not sure if the concern is still valid then since you seem to be correctly
> getting the future GP in those cases, except for the naming which I suggest
> be changed from 'c' to 'future_gp' just for clarity / self-documenting code.
Indeed, "c" for "->completed" is completely outdated. ;-)
Would you be willing to send a patch providing a better name?
Thanx, Paul
