Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:08:33 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Isolated expedited RCU code to a new tree_exp.h
Message-ID: <20160416130831.GA29917@lerouge>
References: <20160415235202.GA26940@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160415235202.GA26940@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 594
Lines: 14

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Frederic,
> 
> One thing that I have had on my list for some time is to rearrange the
> RCU source code to make it easier to find things.  Given our discussion
> yesterday, this seemed like a good time to take that step with the
> expedited grace-period code.  I have a couple of commits doing this in
> -rcu, and would like your opinion.  Worthwhile, or should I revert those
> two commits?

It's definetly worth having a look! And it might help me eventually understand
that expedited grace period thing :-)

Thanks!