On 04/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> I wordsmithed the commit log and merged in the RCU-bh and RCU checks
> to rcu_sync_is_idle(), with the result shown below. Does that work
> OK, or did I mess something up?
Yes, thanks!
the additional RCU-bh and RCU checks matches the "or introduce
rcu_read_lock_any_held()"
note from the changelog, perhaps it makes some sense...
Just one nit below,
> - * Must be invoked within an RCU read-side critical section whose
> - * flavor matches that of the rcu_sync struture.
> + * Must be invoked within an RCU-sched read-side critical section.
^^^^^^^^^
Given that the actual code:
> static inline bool rcu_sync_is_idle(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> - rcu_sync_lockdep_assert(rsp);
> -#endif
> + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> + !rcu_read_lock_bh_held() &&
> + !rcu_read_lock_sched_held(),
> + "suspicious rcu_sync_is_idle() usage");
does RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_any()) the comment should say
Must be invoked within an RCU read-side critical section of
any flavor
?
Oleg.
