Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        mingo@redhat.com
Message-ID: <1388559142.60584.1460820549723.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160416130831.GA29917@lerouge>
References: <20160415235202.GA26940@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160416130831.GA29917@lerouge>
Subject: Re: Isolated expedited RCU code to a new tree_exp.h
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: Isolated expedited RCU code to a new tree_exp.h
Thread-Index: jBgopt6OH8fZyQHPdPf3gVnf7eKQTA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 896
Lines: 28

----- On Apr 16, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@gmail.com wrote:

> 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 :-)

Moving the expedited handling into its own files indeed
seems to better organize the sub-parts of RCU. That seems
like a good idea.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com