[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4917A8E7.8060801@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:22:15 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcupdate: move synchronize_sched() back to rcupdate.c
V2
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 02:47:44PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> this fix remove ugly macro, and increase readability for rcupdate codes
>>
>> changed from v1:
>> use HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH/SCHED instead of define duplicate version of
>> synchronize_sched().
>
> Hello, Jiangshan!
>
> I very much like getting rid of the ugly macro. I of course like the
> kernel-doc fixes. ;-)
>
> I am not yet convinced of the HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH and
> HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED pieces. It is not clear to me that this approach
> is simpler than the current approach of simply providing the appropriate
> definitions for the symbols in the implementation-specific rcuxxx.h
> file.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
I think:
RCU_BH is not required, we can used RCU instead. so HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH
will help for implementation which has not RCU_BH.
HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED is a little different, RCU and RCU_SCHED are both
required for the kernel. But I think, in an implementation,
if rcu_read_lock_sched() implies rcu_read_lock(), we may not need implement
RCU_SCHED too(sometimes we may implement RCU_SCHED for performance).
so HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED will help.
Thanx, Lai.
--
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