On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:48:15PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:18:47PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:01:57PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:01:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > A casual reader might be forgiven for being confused by the combination
> > > > of "Return" in the above comment and the "void" function type below.
> > > > So shouldn't this comment be something like "Add the specified number
> > > > of callbacks to the specified segment..."?
> > >
> > > You are right, sorry and will fix it.
> > >
> > > > > @@ -330,11 +342,16 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
> > > > > return; /* Nothing to do. */
> > > > > + rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> > > > > + rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> > > > > + rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
> > > >
> > > > This should be a "for" loop. Yes, the number and names of the segments
> > > > hasn't changed for a good long time, but nothing like code as above to
> > > > inspire Murphy to more mischief. :-/
> > > >
> > > > Actually, why not put the summation in the existing "for" loop below?
> > > > That would save a line of code in addition to providing less inspiration
> > > > for Mr. Murphy.
> > >
> > > I can do that. Actually Frederic suggested the same thing but I was reluctant
> > > as I felt it did not give much LOC benefit. Will revisit it.
> >
> > It reduces 1 line of code :) I changed it to the below, will update the patch:
>
> Thank you! And yes, I am much more concerned about the constraints on
> Mr. Murphy than on the lines of code. ;-)
And I have pulled in the updated commit, thank you all!
Thanx, Paul
> > ---8<-----------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > index 9b43d686b1f3..bff9b2253e50 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg, long
> > WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->seglen[seg], v);
> > }
> >
> > -/* Return number of callbacks in a segment of the segmented callback list. */
> > +/* Increase the numeric length of a segment by a specified amount. */
> > static void rcu_segcblist_add_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg, long v)
> > {
> > WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->seglen[seg], rsclp->seglen[seg] + v);
> > @@ -406,13 +406,12 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> >
> > if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
> > return; /* Nothing to do. */
> > - rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> > - rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> > - rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
> > + rclp->len = 0;
> > *rclp->tail = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
> > rclp->tail = rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL];
> > WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL], NULL);
> > for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++) {
> > + rclp->len += rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, i);
> > WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[i], rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL]);
> > rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, i, 0);
> > }
