linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:18:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET

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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/