rculist: Unify documentation about missing list_empty_rcu()
We have two separate sections that talk about why list_empty_rcu()
is not needed, so this commit consolidates them.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: The usual wordsmithing. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
index f8633d3..d29740b 100644
--- a/include/linux/rculist.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
@@ -11,15 +11,6 @@
#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
/*
- * Why is there no list_empty_rcu()? Because list_empty() serves this
- * purpose. The list_empty() function fetches the RCU-protected pointer
- * and compares it to the address of the list head, but neither dereferences
- * this pointer itself nor provides this pointer to the caller. Therefore,
- * it is not necessary to use rcu_dereference(), so that list_empty() can
- * be used anywhere you would want to use a list_empty_rcu().
- */
-
-/*
* INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU - Initialize a list_head visible to RCU readers
* @list: list to be initialized
*
@@ -318,21 +309,29 @@
/*
* Where are list_empty_rcu() and list_first_entry_rcu()?
*
- * Implementing those functions following their counterparts list_empty() and
- * list_first_entry() is not advisable because they lead to subtle race
- * conditions as the following snippet shows:
+ * They do not exist because they would lead to subtle race conditions:
*
* if (!list_empty_rcu(mylist)) {
* struct foo *bar = list_first_entry_rcu(mylist, struct foo, list_member);
* do_something(bar);
* }
*
- * The list may not be empty when list_empty_rcu checks it, but it may be when
- * list_first_entry_rcu rereads the ->next pointer.
+ * The list might be non-empty when list_empty_rcu() checks it, but it
+ * might have become empty by the time that list_first_entry_rcu() rereads
+ * the ->next pointer, which would result in a SEGV.
*
- * Rereading the ->next pointer is not a problem for list_empty() and
- * list_first_entry() because they would be protected by a lock that blocks
- * writers.
+ * When not using RCU, it is OK for list_first_entry() to re-read that
+ * pointer because both functions should be protected by some lock that
+ * blocks writers.
+ *
+ * When using RCU, list_empty() uses READ_ONCE() to fetch the
+ * RCU-protected ->next pointer and then compares it to the address of the
+ * list head. However, it neither dereferences this pointer nor provides
+ * this pointer to its caller. Thus, READ_ONCE() suffices (that is,
+ * rcu_dereference() is not needed), which means that list_empty() can be
+ * used anywhere you would want to use list_empty_rcu(). Just don't
+ * expect anything useful to happen if you do a subsequent lockless
+ * call to list_first_entry_rcu()!!!
*
* See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative.
*/
