On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:50:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 06:16:31PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:21:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 07:16:53PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > The RCU example for 'rejecting stale data' on system-call auditting > > > > stops iterating through the rules if a deleted one is found. It makes > > > > more sense to continue looking at other rules once a deleted one is > > > > rejected. Although the original example is fine, this makes it more > > > > meaningful. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <j...@joelfernandes.org> > > > > > > Does the actual audit code that this was copied from now include the > > > continue statement? If so, please update the commit log to state that > > > and then I will take the resulting patch. (This example was inspired > > > by a long-ago version of the actual audit code.) > > > > The document talks of a situation that could be but is not really in the > > implementation. It says "If the system-call audit module were to ever need > > to > > reject stale data". So its not really something implemented. I was just > > correcting the example you had there since it made more sense to me to > > continue looking for other rules in the list once a rule was shown to be > > stale. It just makes the example more correct. > > > > But I'm Ok if you want to leave that alone ;-) Hence, the RFC tag to this > > patch ;-) > > Well, I do agree that there are situations where you need to keep > going. But in the common case where only one instance of a given key > is allowed, and where the list is either (1) sorted and/or (2) added > to at the beginning, if you find a deleted element with a given key, > you are guaranteed that you won't find another with that key even if > you continue scanning the list. After all, if you did find a deleted > element, the duplicate either is not on the list in the sorted case > or is behind you in the add-at-front case. > > And in the more complex cases where persistent searching is required, > you usually have to restart the search instead of continuing it. Besides, > things like the Issaquah Challenge don't seem to belong in introductory > documentation on RCU. ;-)
Ok, agreed. Lets drop this :) -Joel
