Re: [PATCH] RCU: Reduce size of rcu_head 1 of 2

From: Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 20:43:24 EST

Next message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED][IO-SHED] Are we missing the big picture?"
Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] RCU: Reduce size of rcu_head 1 of 2"
In reply to: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: [PATCH] RCU: Reduce size of rcu_head 1 of 2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:16:44PM -0700, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Gratuitous change to API during stable series BAD BAD BAD. If
> > > you drop this it stays as is until 2.8. The extra arg in
> > > unneccessary, but breaking it is worse.
> >
> > There won't be any out-of-tree users by then.
>
> I must be misunderstanding something. If the point of the patch is to
> shrink "struct rcu_head" (which it seems to do) won't that change
> offsets in all sorts of things like "struct dentry"? I know we
> officially don't care about binary modules but a change like that
> seems pretty gratuitous for such a small gain.

Repeat after me: there is no module ABI.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED][IO-SHED] Are we missing the big picture?"
Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] RCU: Reduce size of rcu_head 1 of 2"
In reply to: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: [PATCH] RCU: Reduce size of rcu_head 1 of 2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST