Le Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:48:12PM +0200, Valentin Schneider a écrit : > On 07/05/24 15:32, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Le Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:17:21AM +0200, Valentin Schneider a écrit : > >> The context_tracking.state RCU_DYNTICKS subvariable has been renamed to > >> RCU_WATCHING, reflect that change in the related helpers. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 ++++---- > >> kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 2 +- > >> kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h | 2 +- > >> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> index 857c2565efeac..d772755ccd564 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> @@ -308,9 +308,9 @@ static int rcu_watching_snap(int cpu) > >> > >> /* > >> * Return true if the snapshot returned from rcu_watching_snap() > >> - * indicates that RCU is in an extended quiescent state. > >> + * indicates that RCU in an extended quiescent state (not watching). > > > > *is in > > > > Oh, thanks! > > >> */ > >> -static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs(int snap) > >> +static bool rcu_watching_in_eqs(int snap) > > > > I would be tempted to propose rcu_watching_snap_in_eqs() but the > > purpose is not to dissuade people from intoning RCU code after all. > > > > I've struggled with finding something sensible for the snapshot helpers; I > think I prefer your suggestion, that way we can have a common prefix for > all snapshot-related helpers. Also I keep reading rcu_watching_in_eqs() as > "is RCU watching while being in EQS?" which is nonsense. Works for me! Thanks. > > > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> >
