Re: [PATCH] Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()

2016-07-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:08:05AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > One little niggle below, but: > > How about the attached? I've updated that comment and rearranged > rb_replace_node_rcu(). Looks good, thanks!

Re: [PATCH] Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()

2016-07-01 Thread David Howells
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > One little niggle below, but: How about the attached? I've updated that comment and rearranged rb_replace_node_rcu(). David --- commit 8bd38ef5a38728390348cc5b4a8797be16af493f Author: David Howells Date: Fri Jul 1 07:53:51 2016 +0100 Introduce rb_replace_node_rc

Re: [PATCH] Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()

2016-07-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:08:07AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Should I also reorder rb_replace_node() whilst > I'm at it so that the new node is initialised first (it shouldn't make a > difference, I know)? Might as well, I can't imagine that making a performance difference and keeping the gen

[PATCH] Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()

2016-07-01 Thread David Howells
Hi Peter, How about the attached patch? Should I also reorder rb_replace_node() whilst I'm at it so that the new node is initialised first (it shouldn't make a difference, I know)? David --- commit 812667d2a82a6a8fe35a44e951e8b1515b04696a Author: David Howells Date: Fri Jul 1 07:53:51 2016 +0