On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:01:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> A casual reader might be forgiven for being confused by the combination
> of "Return" in the above comment and the "void" function type below.
> So shouldn't this comment be something like "Add the specified number
> of callbacks to the specified segment..."?
You are right, sorry and will fix it.
> > @@ -330,11 +342,16 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct
> > rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> >
> > if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
> > return; /* Nothing to do. */
> > + rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> > + rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> > + rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
>
> This should be a "for" loop. Yes, the number and names of the segments
> hasn't changed for a good long time, but nothing like code as above to
> inspire Murphy to more mischief. :-/
>
> Actually, why not put the summation in the existing "for" loop below?
> That would save a line of code in addition to providing less inspiration
> for Mr. Murphy.
I can do that. Actually Frederic suggested the same thing but I was reluctant
as I felt it did not give much LOC benefit. Will revisit it.
>
> > *rclp->tail = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
> > rclp->tail = rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL];
> > WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL], NULL);
> > - for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++)
> > + for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++) {
> > WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[i], rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL]);
> > + rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, i, 0);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -345,7 +362,6 @@ void rcu_segcblist_insert_count(struct rcu_segcblist
> > *rsclp,
> > struct rcu_cblist *rclp)
> > {
> > rcu_segcblist_add_len(rsclp, rclp->len);
> > - rclp->len = 0;
>
> You audited the callers, correct?
Yep.
thanks,
- Joel
