Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964822Ab1CaLTm (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:19:42 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:38075 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751202Ab1CaLTk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:19:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET From: Peter Zijlstra To: Lai Jiangshan Cc: Michal Marek , "H. Peter Anvin" , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Jan Beulich , Ingo Molnar , Alexander van Heukelum , Dipankar Sarma , Andrew Morton , Sam Ravnborg , David Howells , Oleg Nesterov , Roland McGrath , Serge Hallyn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt In-Reply-To: <4D944E60.8080704@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4D8FF9BC.7050609@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D90647902000078000389CB@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4D924BAF.1020906@linux.intel.com> <20110329213130.GK2261@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D924FEE.8040804@linux.intel.com> <20110329214704.GM2261@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D9256AF.5000308@linux.intel.com> <20110330004725.GO2261@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D92BECA.50802@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D92DA32.2010809@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110330105505.GA3195@sepie.suse.cz> <1301482656.4859.171.camel@twins> <4D931814.9090100@suse.cz> <4D93D29C.5010702@cn.fujitsu.com> <1301558691.2250.486.camel@laptop> <4D944E60.8080704@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:18:40 +0200 Message-ID: <1301570320.4859.242.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1631 Lines: 41 On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 17:50 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On 03/31/2011 04:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 09:02 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >> I like this cleanup, could you continue for this hard job? I will help > >> you if required. > >> > >> Ingo & Peter - will you accept the patches when it is done. > >> > > No, like I said, I think the proposed patch is utterly horrid. > > > > But how about my kernel-offset.c patch? It is clean & simple, > it just seems not so normal. > > If the proposed splitting patch is horrid, I think we will try to > update it as you expect. > > If splitting sched.h is wrong, I will try to persuade more people > accept the kernel-offset.c patch. Well, I'm all for cleaning up sched.h, it includes way too much things not strongly related to kernel/sched*.c like a lot of the signal things and the misnamed signal_struct (should be called process_struct or somesuch). That also causes the inversion between sched.h and wait.h What I don't like is those _types.h headers, and definitely not the massive explosion of those as per the proposed patch. Nor do I quite get why all that is needed, sched_types which would define task_struct still needs the new task_rcu_struct bits, and as per the patch you need to split the rcu headers into two. Once you've done that, I don't see why sched.h still needs splitting too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/