On 12.05.2017 00:09, Paul Goyette wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2017, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> On 11.05.2017 15:17, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >>>> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:35:19 +0800 (+08) >>>> From: Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 11 May 2017, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote: >>>> >>>>> (1) Why splsoftserial() is required instead of kpreempt_disable()? >>>>> localcount_drain() uses xc_broadcast(0, ...), that is, it uses >>>>> low priority xcall. Low priority xcall would be done by kthread >>>>> context, so I think kpreempt_disable() would be sufficient to >>>>> prevent localcount_drain() xcall running. >>>> >>>> I think you are correct. Taylor, do you agree? >>> >>> Yes, I think this is fine. I probably chose splsoftserial because I >>> was thinking of pserialize(9). >>> >> >> While there, locking.9 is begging for being updated for new APIs. > > Well, it looks to me like almost everything is listed there, except for > psref(9) (and now, of course, localcount(9)). > > It's interesting that you added info for pserialize(9) but did not add > psref(9)! > This file predates psref(9) and SMP-ification of the network stack by IIJ. > Anyway, I will make a note to add a paragraph for localcount(9). > Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature