[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317053207.1763.30.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:06:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt@...el.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling
seperately from tick stop
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:02 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Would your readability concerns be addressed by something like the
> following?
>
> #define RCU_NO_HZ_LATER 0
> #define RCU_NO_HZ_NOW 1
>
> Then we would have one of the following:
>
> tick_nohz_idle_enter(RCU_NO_HZ_LATER);
> tick_nohz_idle_enter(RCU_NO_HZ_NOW);
That certainly is a lot better, except for the two different ways of
collating NO HZ in that one line.
--
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