From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <[email protected]>
This patch adds cross-references and fixes a few formtting issues.
Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
index ed5ae24b196e..30c007edfbfb 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
@@ -6,16 +6,16 @@ Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Arrays
Although RCU is more commonly used to protect linked lists, it can
also be used to protect arrays. Three situations are as follows:
-1. Hash Tables
+1. :ref:`Hash Tables <hash_tables>`
-2. Static Arrays
+2. :ref:`Static Arrays <static_arrays>`
-3. Resizeable Arrays
+3. :ref:`Resizeable Arrays <resizeable_arrays>`
Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
array that is separately indexed. It might be tempting to consider use
of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
-case is -not- supported. The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
+case is **not** supported. The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
are far more trouble than they are worth. If RCU-protected indexes into
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ to be safely used.
That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
described in the following sections.
+.. _hash_tables:
Situation 1: Hash Tables
------------------------
@@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ has a linked-list hash chain. Each hash chain can be protected by RCU
as described in the listRCU.txt document. This approach also applies
to other array-of-list situations, such as radix trees.
+.. _static_arrays:
Situation 2: Static Arrays
--------------------------
@@ -50,6 +52,8 @@ Quick Quiz:
:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_seqlock>`
+.. _resizeable_arrays:
+
Situation 3: Resizeable Arrays
------------------------------
@@ -66,7 +70,7 @@ the remainder of the new, updates the ids->entries pointer to point to
the new array, and invokes ipc_rcu_putref() to free up the old array.
Note that rcu_assign_pointer() is used to update the ids->entries pointer,
which includes any memory barriers required on whatever architecture
-you are running on.::
+you are running on::
static int grow_ary(struct ipc_ids* ids, int newsize)
{
@@ -118,7 +122,7 @@ a simple check suffices. The pointer to the structure corresponding
to the desired IPC object is placed in "out", with NULL indicating
a non-existent entry. After acquiring "out->lock", the "out->deleted"
flag indicates whether the IPC object is in the process of being
-deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned.::
+deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned::
struct kern_ipc_perm* ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids* ids, int id)
{
--
2.17.1
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 02:59:27AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <[email protected]>
>
> This patch adds cross-references and fixes a few formtting issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <[email protected]>
Hearing no objections, applied to be squashed into this commit:
7e42de651ffd ("Documentation: RCU: arrayRCU: Converted arrayRCU.txt
to arrayRCU.rst")
And with the addition of Phong's and Amol's Tested-by tags.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
> index ed5ae24b196e..30c007edfbfb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
> @@ -6,16 +6,16 @@ Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Arrays
> Although RCU is more commonly used to protect linked lists, it can
> also be used to protect arrays. Three situations are as follows:
>
> -1. Hash Tables
> +1. :ref:`Hash Tables <hash_tables>`
>
> -2. Static Arrays
> +2. :ref:`Static Arrays <static_arrays>`
>
> -3. Resizeable Arrays
> +3. :ref:`Resizeable Arrays <resizeable_arrays>`
>
> Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
> array that is separately indexed. It might be tempting to consider use
> of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
> -case is -not- supported. The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
> +case is **not** supported. The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
> arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
> integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
> are far more trouble than they are worth. If RCU-protected indexes into
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ to be safely used.
> That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
> described in the following sections.
>
> +.. _hash_tables:
>
> Situation 1: Hash Tables
> ------------------------
> @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ has a linked-list hash chain. Each hash chain can be protected by RCU
> as described in the listRCU.txt document. This approach also applies
> to other array-of-list situations, such as radix trees.
>
> +.. _static_arrays:
>
> Situation 2: Static Arrays
> --------------------------
> @@ -50,6 +52,8 @@ Quick Quiz:
>
> :ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_seqlock>`
>
> +.. _resizeable_arrays:
> +
> Situation 3: Resizeable Arrays
> ------------------------------
>
> @@ -66,7 +70,7 @@ the remainder of the new, updates the ids->entries pointer to point to
> the new array, and invokes ipc_rcu_putref() to free up the old array.
> Note that rcu_assign_pointer() is used to update the ids->entries pointer,
> which includes any memory barriers required on whatever architecture
> -you are running on.::
> +you are running on::
>
> static int grow_ary(struct ipc_ids* ids, int newsize)
> {
> @@ -118,7 +122,7 @@ a simple check suffices. The pointer to the structure corresponding
> to the desired IPC object is placed in "out", with NULL indicating
> a non-existent entry. After acquiring "out->lock", the "out->deleted"
> flag indicates whether the IPC object is in the process of being
> -deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned.::
> +deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned::
>
> struct kern_ipc_perm* ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids* ids, int id)
> {
> --
> 2.17.1
>