The header contains a comment that details why the functions list_empty_rcu() and list_first_entry_rcu() don't exist. It explains that they don't exist because standard list_empty() can be used just as well, but one can not expect sane results from a subsequent, quote, "list_first_entry_rcu()".
This function (obviously) does not exist. What the comment's author actually meant was the standard list-function list_first_entry(). Change the function name in that comment from list_first_entry_rcu() to list_first_entry(). Additionally, add the parenthesis to list_first_or_null_rcu to be congruent with that entire comment's style. Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <[email protected]> --- Hi! I hope this helps. I wasn't 100.000000% sure if that's correct, but I thought asking is for free 8-) Regards, P. --- include/linux/rculist.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h index d29740be4833..4837d8892691 100644 --- a/include/linux/rculist.h +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h @@ -331,9 +331,9 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list, * 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()!!! + * call to list_first_entry()!!! * - * See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative. + * See list_first_or_null_rcu() for an alternative. */ /** -- 2.41.0
