[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=7uCaixNV6z9pRMW0TfN-_ZgiRPHNG1QSZ=tE2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:31:42 -0800
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per threadgroup
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Risky. sched.h doesn't include rwsem.h.
>
> We could make it do so, but almost every compilation unit in the kernel
> includes sched.h. It would be nicer to make the kernel build
> finer-grained, rather than blunter-grained. Don't be afraid to add new
> header files if that is one way of doing this!
>
The only header files included by rwsem.h that aren't directly
included in sched.h already are linux/linkage.h and asm/atomic.h.
Since sighand_struct in sched.h has an atomic_t field, sched.h is
clearly including atomic.h somewhere indirectly. And there are mutex
fields in sched.h, which means it's indirectly including
linux/mutex.h, which includes linux/linkage.h. So I think that it's
hard to argue that this change would make the kernel build any more
heavyweight.
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