[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070608200058.GC18399@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:00:58 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] convert RCU Preempt tasklet into softirq.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:43:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:36 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > The first time I compiled it, I forgot the ';' and got a warning there.
> > > But the warning also included "declaring structure softirq_action in
> > > prototype", so I fixed both the ';' and added the struct. I can try
> > > compile without it. But I also know that adding #include <interrupt.h>
> > > in rcupreempt.h caused issues too.
> >
> > If I leave out both the "struct softirq_action" and the
> > rcu_process_callbacks() declaration,, it compiles for me.
> >
> > So I guess the rcu_process_callbacks() should be declared static...
>
> OK, I can update the patch to reflect that. Remember, I didn't learn
> anything from doing this patch, so I have no idea why
> rcu_procell_callbacks was global. I was just keeping to the norm. :-)
Hey, -I- learned something from your doing the patch -- namely that
rcu_process_callbacks() was needlessly non-static. ;-)
> Actually, I'll make a separate patch for this change. This is a
> different issue.
Sounds good!
Thanx, Paul
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists