[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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

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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-31 13:21    [W:0.170 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site