Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist

2018-09-23 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:54 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 07:30:30PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about > > the following "Important note" text. > > > > Could it be clarified in the below t

Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist

2018-09-23 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 07:31:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about > > the following "Important note" text. > > > > Could it be clarified in the below t

Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist

2018-09-23 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 07:30:30PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about > the following "Important note" text. > > Could it be clarified in the below text better why "remaining > callbacks are placed back on the RCU_DONE_T

Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist

2018-09-23 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about > the following "Important note" text. > > Could it be clarified in the below text better why "remaining > callbacks are placed back on the RCU_DONE_TAIL segme

Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist

2018-09-23 Thread Joel Fernandes
Hi Paul, I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about the following "Important note" text. Could it be clarified in the below text better why "remaining callbacks are placed back on the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment", is a reason for not depending on ->head for determining if no ca