Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions
[Posted December 16, 2009 by corbet]
| From: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| David Howells <dhowells-AT-redhat.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions |
| Date: |
| Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:07:45 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: |
| Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar-AT-in.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg-AT-tv-sign.ru>,
Al Viro <viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris-AT-namei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap-AT-xenotime.net>,
Vegard Nossum <vegardno-AT-ifi.uio.no> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, David Howells wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > -197 * we use RCU protection here
> > +196 * caller must be holding the RCU readlocke
>
> You mean "readlock" I suspect.
Or maybe he's talking about ye olde readlocke, used widely for OS research
throughout the middle ages. You still find that spelling in some really
old CS literature.
Linus
(
Log in to post comments)
