[PATCH 1/2] list: introduce a new cutting helper

[Keith Busch]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:43:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:36:44AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:11:52PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> > > On 6/13/24 18:26, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > But that's not the problem for the rcu case. It's the last line that's
> > > > the problem:
> > > > 
> > > >  	list->prev->next = list;
> > > > 
> > > > We can't change forward pointers for any element being detached from
> > > > @head because a reader iterating the list may see that new pointer value
> > > > and end up in the wrong list, breaking iteration. A synchronize rcu
> > > > needs to happen before forward pointers can be mucked with, so it still
> > > > needs to be done in two steps. Oh bother...
> > > 
> > > Agree and probably we may break it down using this API:
> > > static inline void list_cut_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> > >  		struct list_head *head, struct list_head *entry, 
> > > 		void (*sync)(void))
> > > {
> > >  	list->next = entry;
> > >  	list->prev = head->prev;
> > > 	__list_del(entry->prev, head);
> > > 	sync();
> > >  	entry->prev = list;
> > >  	list->prev->next = list;
> > > }
> > 
> > Yes, that's the pattern, but I think we need an _srcu() variant: the
> > "sync" callback needs to know the srcu_struct.
> 
> Just make a helper function like this:
> 
> 	static void my_synchronize_srcu(void)
> 	{
> 		synchronize_srcu(&my_srcu_struct);
> 	}
> 
> Or am I missing something subtle here?

That would work if we had a global srcu, but the intended usage
dynamically allocates one per device the driver is attached to, so a
void callback doesn't know which one to sync.