Doc: Fix wrong API example usage of call_rcu().

At some point the API of call_rcu() changed from three parameters
to two parameters, correct the documentation.

One confusing thing in RCU/listRCU.txt, which is NOT fixed in this patch,
is that no reason or explaination is given for using call_rcu() instead of
the normal synchronize_rcu() call.

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
index 1fd1753..4349c14 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions:
 		list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
 			if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
 				list_del_rcu(&e->list);
-				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
+				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
 				return 0;
 			}
 		}
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ RCU ("read-copy update") its name.  The RCU code is as follows:
 				ne->rule.action = newaction;
 				ne->rule.file_count = newfield_count;
 				list_replace_rcu(e, ne);
-				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
+				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
 				return 0;
 			}
 		}
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ flag under the spinlock as follows:
 				list_del_rcu(&e->list);
 				e->deleted = 1;
 				spin_unlock(&e->lock);
-				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e);
+				call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
 				return 0;
 			}
 		}