From ded5e5ed2f3348ba2f9a319c6497e46c22850e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:46:55 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Update call_rcu() usage, add synchronize_rcu()
Reported-by: Kyle Hubert <khubert@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
---
Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
index e6cc57460212..ed64d220baf2 100644
--- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
+++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
@@ -1645,7 +1645,9 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done.
all the readers who were traversing the list when we deleted the
element are finished. We use <function>call_rcu()</function> to
register a callback which will actually destroy the object once
- the readers are finished.
+ all pre-existing readers are finished. Alternatively,
+ <function>synchronize_rcu()</function> may be used to block until
+ all pre-existing are finished.
</para>
<para>
But how does Read Copy Update know when the readers are
@@ -1714,7 +1716,7 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done.
- object_put(obj);
+ list_del_rcu(&obj->list);
cache_num--;
-+ call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu, obj);
++ call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu);
}
/* Must be holding cache_lock */