From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932639AbYB2Nxc (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:53:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756798AbYB2NxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:53:22 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:40184 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754960AbYB2NxV (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:53:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:53:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Roman Zippel cc: ego@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Paul E McKenney , Dipankar Sarma , Ted Tso , dvhltc@us.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , bunk@kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Preempt-RCU: Implementation In-Reply-To: <200802290534.57040.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Message-ID: References: <20071213170348.GA25981@in.ibm.com> <20071213171658.GE25981@in.ibm.com> <200802290534.57040.zippel@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Roman Zippel wrote: > > Also why is this a choice? Are more RCU types planned? Why shouldn't it be a choice? You can have CLASSIC_RCU or PREEMPT_RCU, one or the other and not both. Sounds perfect for being a choice. -- Steve