Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:50:32 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/14] rcu: Abstract sequence counting from synchronize_sched_expedited() |
| |
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 07:13:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Its really time for them to stop wanking and stare reality in the face. > > Indeed, I have been and will be continuing to make myself unpopular with > that topic. ;-)
Thanks!!
> > > > > +/* Wrapper functions for expedited grace periods. */ > > > > > +static void rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(struct rcu_state *rsp) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + rcu_seq_start(&rsp->expedited_sequence); > > > > > +} > > > > > +static void rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(struct rcu_state *rsp) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + rcu_seq_end(&rsp->expedited_sequence); > > > > > +} > > > > > +static unsigned long rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(struct rcu_state *rsp) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + return rcu_seq_snap(&rsp->expedited_sequence); > > > > > +} > > > > > +static bool rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + return rcu_seq_done(&rsp->expedited_sequence, s); > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > This is wrappers for wrappers sake? Why? > > > > > > For _rcu_barrier(), as noted in the commit log. > > > > Yes it said; but why? Surely _rcu_barrier() can do the > > ->expedited_sequence thing itself, that hardly seems worthy of a > > wrapper. > > Ah, you want synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited() > to use rcu_seq_start() and friends directly. I can certainly do that.
Well, 'want' is a strong word, I was just questioning the use of these trivial wrappers.
| |