Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:53:21 +0800 | | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET |
| |
On 03/31/2011 09:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:02:20AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> On 03/30/2011 07:46 PM, Michal Marek wrote: >>> On 30.3.2011 12:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 12:55 +0200, Michal Marek wrote: >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] headers: Allow for lightweight inclusion of task_struct definition >>>>> >>>>> Factor out a couple of type definitions to <header>_types.h to allow >>>>> using task_struct without pulling tons of new dependencies via sched.h. >>>> >>>> Urgh, not pretty.. so why not clean up sched.h properly? There's way too >>>> much cruft in there. >>> >>> It was a proof-of-concept to show that it is doable to have proper >>> definition of task_struct in rcupdate.h. Not an entry for any code >>> beauty contest. >>> >>> Michal >>> >> >> 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. >> >> Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> > > I certainly like the idea of being able to inline TREE_PREEMPT_RCU's > rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() using normal C code! > > Thanx, Paul >
kernel-offset.c can be merged to some branch of your tree for testing inlined TREE_PREEMPT_RCU's rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() before the kernel headers splitting is done.
Can the [patch 1/5] be merged to mainline earlier? could you add it to origin/rcu/next?
Thanks, Lai
|  |