On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 11:50:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 09:34, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yes, it would be nice to abstract this somehow in order to hide it in > > SRCU, but I still don't see a good way of doing this. > > Ehh - like we actually do spinlocks in general, perhaps? > > Spinlocks always exist. On UP - with no spinlock debugging - it turns > into a zero-sized data structure, and the spin lock/unlock operations > are no-ops. > > Why don't you just do the exact same thing with the "struct > srcu_usage". For Tiny SRCU, just make it an empty struct, with an > empty initializer. > > IOW, don't "abstract it out". Abstract it IN. Make tiny-rcu still have > it, just as a no-op. > > Anyway, I've pulled your fix, but maybe the above would have been the > cleaner solution? Good point, thank you! I will add the lock to Tiny SRCU, shooting for the v6.6 merge window. Thanx, Paul
