From 3943ac5d99ec024f97442e5f3def1034bb0b1bb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:03:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Doc: Fix wrong API example usage of call_rcu(). At some point the API of call_rcu() changed from three parameters to two parameters, correct the documentation. One confusing thing in RCU/listRCU.txt, which is NOT fixed in this patch, is that no reason or explaination is given for using call_rcu() instead of the normal synchronize_rcu() call. Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt index 1fd175368a8..4349c1487e9 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions: list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { list_del_rcu(&e->list); - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule); return 0; } } @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows: ne->rule.action = newaction; ne->rule.file_count = newfield_count; list_replace_rcu(e, ne); - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule); return 0; } } @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ flag under the spinlock as follows: list_del_rcu(&e->list); e->deleted = 1; spin_unlock(&e->lock); - call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule); return 0; } }