On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 06:24:33PM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote: > The example code snippets on rculist_nulls.rst are assuming 'obj' to > have the 'hlist_head' field named 'obj_node', but a sentence is wrongly > mentioning 'obj->obj_node.next' as 'obj->obj_next'. Fix it. > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst > index 94a8bfe9f560..5cd6f3f8810f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ Quoting Corey Minyard:: > 2) Insertion algorithm > ---------------------- > > -We need to make sure a reader cannot read the new 'obj->obj_next' value > +We need to make sure a reader cannot read the new 'obj->obj_node.next' value I do like this being more specific, but if we are going do add this level of specificity, shouldn't we refer to a definition of ->obj_node? (I queued and pushed 1/4 and 2/4, thank you, and stopped here.) Thanx, Paul > and previous value of 'obj->key'. Otherwise, an item could be deleted > from a chain, and inserted into another chain. If new chain was empty > before the move, 'next' pointer is NULL, and lockless reader can not > -- > 2.25.1 >
