On Wed, Jul 25 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> 
>> Looks good ... except ... naming is hard.
>> 
>>  is_after_call_rcu_init()  asserts where in the lifecycle we are,
>>  is_after_call_rcu() tests where in the lifecycle we are.
>> 
>>  The names are similar but the purpose is quite different.
>>  Maybe s/is_after_call_rcu_init/call_rcu_init/ ??
>
> How about rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu()?

Yes, I like those.
Thanks,
NeilBrown