On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:41:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:47:18PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > To me it would sure look nice to have kernel/rcu/tree.c, > > > kernel/rcu/tiny.c, kernel/rcu/core.c, etc. > > > > > > [ ... and we would certainly also break new ground by introducing a > > > "torture.c" file, for the first time in Linux kernel history! ;-) ] > > > > > > But it's really your call, this is something you should only do if you > > > are > > > comfortable with it. > > > > IFF we're going to restructure rcu; can we save the CPP some work and do > > away with rcu*_plugin.h ? > > OK, I'll bite... Where did you want to put the code instead?
Just about here: kernel/rcutree.c:#include "rcutree_plugin.h" and save the bother of inclusion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
