[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160417023457.GI3687@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:34:57 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Isolated expedited RCU code to a new tree_exp.h
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 03:29:09PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Apr 16, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@...il.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> Hello, Frederic,
> >>
> >> One thing that I have had on my list for some time is to rearrange the
> >> RCU source code to make it easier to find things. Given our discussion
> >> yesterday, this seemed like a good time to take that step with the
> >> expedited grace-period code. I have a couple of commits doing this in
> >> -rcu, and would like your opinion. Worthwhile, or should I revert those
> >> two commits?
> >
> > It's definetly worth having a look! And it might help me eventually understand
> > that expedited grace period thing :-)
And for me to document it. ;-)
> Moving the expedited handling into its own files indeed
> seems to better organize the sub-parts of RCU. That seems
> like a good idea.
Sounds good, will give it a try. If it works well, I might do the same
for other sub-parts of RCU.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists