Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754125Ab1DABzw (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:55:52 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:64108 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752793Ab1DABzv (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:55:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4D953121.6090901@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:57:53 +0800 From: Lai Jiangshan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra 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 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET 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> <1301570320.4859.242.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1301570320.4859.242.camel@twins> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-04-01 09:54:12, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-04-01 09:54:17, Serialize complete at 2011-04-01 09:54:17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1955 Lines: 48 On 03/31/2011 07:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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. > > "struct task_rcu_struct" is just a cleanup patch. We are trying to use inlined read_read_[un]lock(), it is required that sched.h needs include rcupdate.h which causes many recursive including. Splitting rcupdate.h only does not help. -- 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/