Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right?
> > > 
> > 
> > More like "concerns".  It's unobvious to me that the modest .text
> > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation.  Where
> > those costs include
> > 
> > - additional maintenance work and
> > 
> > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the
> >   tester base.  This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU
> >   implementations.
> > 
> > But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;)
> 
> ;-)
> 
> How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic
> RCU is dropped?  That would be a large net decrease in code size and
> complexity.

It's a bit artificial to link the two actions.  Removing something:
good.  Adding something: bad.  good+bad == less good ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/