On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:06:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
I would be more likely to break rcutree_plugin.h into pieces (e.g., for
preempt-rcu, RCU_FAST_NOHZ, NOCB, stall warnings, and so on than to merge
it into rcutree.c.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
