Make the needlessly global srcu_readers_active() static.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Currently the init_srcu_struct() routine has no way to report out-of-memory
errors.  This patch (as761) makes it return -ENOMEM when the per-cpu data
allocation fails.

The patch also makes srcu_init_notifier_head() report a BUG if a notifier
head can't be initialized.  Perhaps it should return -ENOMEM instead, but
in the most likely cases where this might occur I don't think any recovery
is possible.  Notifier chains generally are not created dynamically.

[akpm@osdl.org: avoid statement-with-side-effect in macro]
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Updated patch adding a variant of RCU that permits sleeping in read-side
critical sections.  SRCU is as follows:

o	Each use of SRCU creates its own srcu_struct, and each
	srcu_struct has its own set of grace periods.  This is
	critical, as it prevents one subsystem with a blocking
	reader from holding up SRCU grace periods for other
	subsystems.

o	The SRCU primitives (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(),
	and synchronize_srcu()) all take a pointer to a srcu_struct.

o	The SRCU primitives must be called from process context.

o	srcu_read_lock() returns an int that must be passed to
	the matching srcu_read_unlock().  Realtime RCU avoids the
	need for this by storing the state in the task struct,
	but SRCU needs to allow a given code path to pass through
	multiple SRCU domains -- storing state in the task struct
	would therefore require either arbitrary space in the
	task struct or arbitrary limits on SRCU nesting.  So I
	kicked the state-storage problem up to the caller.

	Of course, it is not permitted to call synchronize_srcu()
	while in an SRCU read-side critical section.

o	There is no call_srcu().  It would not be hard to implement
	one, but it seems like too easy a way to OOM the system.
	(Hey, we have enough trouble with call_rcu(), which does
	-not- permit readers to sleep!!!)  So, if you want it,
	please tell me why...

[josht@us.ibm.com: sparse notation]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>