On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 01:24:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:05:10PM -0800, paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Hui Su <sh_...@163.com>
> >
> > This commit updates the documented API of call_rcu() to use the
> > rcu_callback_t typedef instead of the open-coded function definition.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_...@163.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > index fb3ff76..1a4723f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> > @@ -497,8 +497,7 @@ long -- there might be other high-priority work to be
> > done.
> > In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu().
> > The call_rcu() API is as follows::
> >
> > - void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head,
> > - void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
> > + void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
>
> Personally I much prefer the old form, because now I have to go look up
> rcu_callback_t to figure out wtf kind of signature is actually required.
How about if this part of the documentation read as follows:
typedef void (*rcu_callback_t)(struct rcu_head *head);
void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
Wold that help?
Thanx, Paul
