On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 10:03:10PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> I believe this field should be called field_count instead of file_count.
> Correct the doc with the same.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
But if we are going to update this, why not update it with the current
audit_filter_task(), audit_del_rule(), and audit_add_rule() code?
Hmmm... One reason is that some of them have changed beyond recognition.
And this example code predates v2.6.12. ;-)
So good eyes, but I believe that this really does reflect the ancient
code...
On the other hand, would you have ideas for more modern replacement
examples?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> index adb5a3782846..190e666fc359 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ otherwise, the added fields would need to be filled in):
> list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
> if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
> e->rule.action = newaction;
> - e->rule.file_count = newfield_count;
> + e->rule.field_count = newfield_count;
> write_unlock(&auditsc_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows:
> return -ENOMEM;
> audit_copy_rule(&ne->rule, &e->rule);
> ne->rule.action = newaction;
> - ne->rule.file_count = newfield_count;
> + ne->rule.field_count = newfield_count;
> list_replace_rcu(&e->list, &ne->list);
> call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
> return 0;
> --
> 2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog
>
