Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2009 12:19:08 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition |
| |
On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right? > > > > > > > More like "concerns". It's unobvious to me that the modest .text > > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation. Where > > those costs include > > > > - additional maintenance work and > > > > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the > > tester base. This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU > > implementations. > > > > But hey, maybe I'm wrong. And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;) > > ;-) > > How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic > RCU is dropped? That would be a large net decrease in code size and > complexity.
It's a bit artificial to link the two actions. Removing something: good. Adding something: bad. good+bad == less good ;)
| |