On 01/20/2012 07:45 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:48:48 -0800 (PST) >> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Copied comment on RCU locking from idr_find(). >>> >>> + * >>> + * This function can be called under rcu_read_lock(), given that the leaf >>> + * pointers lifetimes are correctly managed. >> >> Awkward comment. It translates to "..., because the leaf pointers >> lifetimes are correctly managed". >> >> Is that what we really meant? Or did we mean "..., provided the leaf >> pointers lifetimes are correctly managed"? > > You are right, and part of me realized that even as I copied in the > comment. I wanted to express the same optimism for idr_get_next() > as was already expressed for idr_find() - whatever it meant ;) > > I thought it was meaning a bit of both: idr.c is managing its end well > enough that rcu_read_lock() can now be used, but the caller has to > manage their locking and lifetimes appropriately too. > >> >> Also, "pointers" should have been "pointer" or "pointer's"! > > You're afraid of Linus turning his "its/it's" wrath from Al to yourself. > > Since "lifetimes" is in the plural, I think it would have to be > "pointers'" - I _think_ that's correct, rather than "pointers's". That seems correct to me also. > But then, it's not the lifetimes of the pointers, but the lifetimes > of the objects that they point to, that's in question. So what it > ought to say is... > > ... falls asleep. ack. and thanks for doing all of that radix tree test harness work, Hugh. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>