On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:25:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:20:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 01:24:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:05:10PM -0800, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > From: Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > This commit updates the documented API of call_rcu() to use the > > > > rcu_callback_t typedef instead of the open-coded function definition. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst | 3 +-- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > > > index fb3ff76..1a4723f 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > > > @@ -497,8 +497,7 @@ long -- there might be other high-priority work to be done. > > > > In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu(). > > > > The call_rcu() API is as follows:: > > > > > > > > - void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head, > > > > - void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head)); > > > > + void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func); > > > > > > Personally I much prefer the old form, because now I have to go look up > > > rcu_callback_t to figure out wtf kind of signature is actually required. > > > > How about if this part of the documentation read as follows: > > > > typedef void (*rcu_callback_t)(struct rcu_head *head); > > void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func); > > > > Wold that help? > > Sure; but now it's more verbose than it was ;-) Tradeoffs, tradeoffs... ;-) Thanx, Paul
