On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:05:08PM -0800, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The rcu_barrier() section of the "Hotplug CPU" section discusses > deadlocks, however the description of deadlocks other than those involving > rcu_barrier() is rather incomplete. > > This commit therefore continues the section by describing how RCU's > design handles CPU hotplug in a deadlock-free way. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 49 +++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst > index 1ae79a1..98557fe 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst > @@ -1929,16 +1929,45 @@ The Linux-kernel CPU-hotplug implementation has notifiers that are used > to allow the various kernel subsystems (including RCU) to respond > appropriately to a given CPU-hotplug operation. Most RCU operations may > be invoked from CPU-hotplug notifiers, including even synchronous > -grace-period operations such as ``synchronize_rcu()`` and > -``synchronize_rcu_expedited()``. I was under the impression that this rst crap now recognises func() and you no longer need to make the text unreadable with "``".
