[PATCH] RCU documentation fixes (January 2006 update)

Updates to in-tree RCU documentation based on comments over the past few
months.

Signed-off-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 12 insertions, 9 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
index f8a54fa0d8ab..1fd175368a87 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ entry does not exist.  For this to be helpful, the search function must
 return holding the per-entry spinlock, as ipc_lock() does in fact do.
 
 Quick Quiz:  Why does the search function need to return holding the
-per-entry lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
+        per-entry lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
 
 If the system-call audit module were to ever need to reject stale data,
 one way to accomplish this would be to add a "deleted" flag and a "lock"
@@ -275,8 +275,8 @@ flag under the spinlock as follows:
         {
                 struct audit_entry  *e;
 
-                /* Do not use the _rcu iterator here, since this is the only
-                 * deletion routine. */
+                /* Do not need to use the _rcu iterator here, since this
+                 * is the only deletion routine. */
                 list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
                         if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
                                 spin_lock(&e->lock);
@@ -304,9 +304,12 @@ function to reject newly deleted data.
 
 
 Answer to Quick Quiz
-
-If the search function drops the per-entry lock before returning, then
-the caller will be processing stale data in any case.  If it is really
-OK to be processing stale data, then you don't need a "deleted" flag.
-If processing stale data really is a problem, then you need to hold the
-per-entry lock across all of the code that uses the value looked up.
+        Why does the search function need to return holding the per-entry
+        lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
+
+        If the search function drops the per-entry lock before returning,
+        then the caller will be processing stale data in any case.  If it
+        is really OK to be processing stale data, then you don't need a
+        "deleted" flag.  If processing stale data really is a problem,
+        then you need to hold the per-entry lock across all of the code
+        that uses the value that was returned.