Le Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Joel Fernandes a écrit : > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 7:13 AM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Le Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 09:00:15PM -0500, Joel Fernandes a écrit : > > > "Acceleration can never fail because the state of gp_seq value used > > > for acceleration is <= the state of gp_seq used for advancing." > > > > > > Does that sound correct now? > > > > That can be confusing since acceleration relies on rcu_seq_snap() while > > advance relies on rcu_seq_current(). And rcu_seq_snap() returns a snapshot > > that may be above the subsequent rcu_seq_current() return value. > > > > So it should rather be something like: > > > > "The base current gp_seq value used to produce the snapshot has to > > be <= the gp_seq used for advancing." > > Yeah "base current gp_seq" though probably equally confusing sounds a > bit better, so I'll just use that instead of "state of gp_seq". > > With that can I add your Review tag? Sure, sounds good! Thanks. > > - Joel >
