Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 28 Oct 2018 18:16:31 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] rcu: doc: update example about stale data
Message-ID: <20181029011631.GA261737@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20181028021653.155513-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20181028172142.GN4170@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181028172142.GN4170@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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) <joel@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 ;-)

- Joel