On 29.01.24 18:08, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:11 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 18.01.24 15:36, Alice Ryhl wrote: >>> +/// Wraps the kernel's `struct poll_table`. >>> +/// >>> +/// # Invariants >>> +/// >>> +/// This struct contains a valid `struct poll_table`. >>> +/// >>> +/// For a `struct poll_table` to be valid, its `_qproc` function must follow the safety >>> +/// requirements of `_qproc` functions. It must ensure that when the waiter is removed and a rcu >> >> The first sentence sounds a bit weird, what is meant by `_qproc` functions? >> Do you have a link to where that is defined? Or is the whole definition the >> next sentence? > > Yeah. Does this wording work better for you? > > /// For a `struct poll_table` to be valid, its `_qproc` function must > follow the safety > /// requirements of `_qproc` functions: > /// > /// * The `_qproc` function is given permission to enqueue a waiter to Does it make sense to change "waiter" to `wait_queue_head`? > the provided `poll_table` > /// during the call. Once the waiter is removed and an rcu grace > period has passed, it must no > /// longer access the `wait_queue_head`. Yes that is better. -- Cheers, Benno
