On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:51:53PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Just in case documentation is desired. ;-)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Document the new call_rcu() primitives.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> >
> > diff --git a/README b/README
> > index 7d97f19..0e5ad47 100644
> > --- a/README
> > +++ b/README
> > @@ -139,6 +139,79 @@ Usage of liburcu-defer
> > * Its API is currently experimental. It may change in future library
> > releases.
> >
> > +Usage of urcu-call-rcu
> > +
> [...]
> > +
> > + These primitives may be combined to set up pretty much any desired
> > + association between worker and call_rcu() helper threads. If
> > + a given executable calls only call_rcu(), then that executable
> > + will have only the single global default call_rcu() helper
> > + thread. This will suffice in most cases.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> It might be good to keep the information at a level appropriate for
> people wanting to familiarize themself with the library. Most
> importantly, I don't want people to run away screaming when they see the
> full set of options when all they really need is to simply do:
>
> #include <urcu-call-rcu.h>
>
> add struct rcu_head structures and pass them to
>
> call_rcu(...);
>
> into their code along with a callback.
>
> We could lift out the rest of the discussion about the various detailed
> tweaks into a separate document.
>
> How does that sound ?
Sounds reasonable.
Where should the separate document go? One approach is docbook headers.
Another is something like an API.txt. Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
