On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 12:07:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 09:06:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > What is returned is an array index -- and SRCU is currently built using > > an array of size 2. Using larger arrays is conceivable (IIRC some > > versions of preemptible RCU used up to 4 or something). > > > > So while the values 0,1 are possible inside bool, that does not reflect > > the nature of the numbers, which is an array index. Mapping that onto > > bool would be slightly confusing (and limit possible future extention of > > using larger arrays for SRCU). > > Ok, make sense. Maybe add this to the comment if we're updating іt. > But using an unsigned return value might still be useful. Ah, well, the thing that got us here is that we (Andrii and me) wanted to use -1 as an 'invalid' value to indicate SRCU is not currently in use. So it all being int is really rather convenient :-)
