Re: [PATCH v1] docs: housekeeping: Fix struct member access in code example

[Jonathan Corbet]

Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Le Sun, May 03, 2026 at 08:47:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet a écrit :
>> Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > No such array housekeeping_cpumasks
>> >
>> > Fix to housekeeping.cpumasks.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst b/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst
>> > index 92c6e53cea75..ccb0a88b9cb3 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst
>> > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/housekeeping.rst
>> > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ the same RCU read side critical section.
>> >  A typical layout example would look like this on the update side
>> >  (``housekeeping_update()``)::
>> >  
>> > -	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping_cpumasks[type], trial);
>> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], trial);
>> >  	synchronize_rcu();
>> 
>> This looks actively wrong to me.  I think it should be:
>> 
>>   housekeeping_cpumask(type)
>> 
>> ... Frederic ... ?
>
> No, Costa is right, housekeeping.cpumasks[type] is where we store
> the pointer. housekeeping_cpumask(type) is only an accessor.
>
> So:
>
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK, then, applied, thanks.

jon