Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:18:40 +0200 |
| |
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 somesuch).
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.
| |