From 18389c4570211e10e94f4a2ce907d01397abc335 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:30:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] doc: Fix statement of RCU's memory-ordering requirements The sentence defining the relationship of accesses before a grace period to read-side accesses following that same grace period was missing a small word: "not". This commit therefore adds it. Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst index a648b423ba0e..3f6ce41ee0c5 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Any code that happens after the end of a given RCU grace period is guaranteed to see the effects of all accesses prior to the beginning of that grace period that are within RCU read-side critical sections. Similarly, any code that happens before the beginning of a given RCU grace -period is guaranteed to see the effects of all accesses following the end +period is guaranteed to not see the effects of all accesses following the end of that grace period that are within RCU read-side critical sections. Note well that RCU-sched read-side critical sections include any region