[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110329214704.GM2261@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:47:04 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 02:32:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 02:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>
> >> I have to say that if we have to use hardcoded offsets in C then we have
> >> bigger problems.
> >
> > In this case, the offsets are mechanically generated from the structure
> > definitions.
> >
> > Or am I missing your point?
>
> Yes. The point is if we have to pull out these kinds of hacks in *C*
> code, we are doing it wrong. Not just a little wrong, but completely
> and totally bonkers wrong.
OK, maybe we are doing it wrong.
But in that case, how do you suggest restructuring include/linux/sched.h
so that struct task_struct can be safely included everywhere
rcu_read_lock() and friends are invoked? Or, on the other hand,
what should we be doing so that we don't need to include task_struct
everywhere?
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