Commit a75f7b48 authored by Akira Yokosawa's avatar Akira Yokosawa Committed by Paul E. McKenney
Browse files

docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists 

The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.

Adjust them.

Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists


Signed-off-by: default avatarAkira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
parent 7a21ddf0

Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst

+6 −3
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1: 
	Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might

	be required?



Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally

Answer:

	Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally

	implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using

	RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at

	filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
@@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2: 
	Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero,

	thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10?



Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was

Answer:

	Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was

	delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and

	the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's

	rcu_barrier_func() started executing.  This would result in
@@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3: 
	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in

	rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?



Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last

Answer:

	This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last

	argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through

	to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),

	causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of