Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/12] rcu: Move expedited code from tree.c to tree_exp.h

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:48:12AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > People have been having some difficulty finding their way around the
> > RCU code.  This commit therefore pulls some of the expedited grace-period
> > code from tree.c to a new tree_exp.h file.  This commit is strictly code
> > movement, with the exception of a forward declaration that was added
> > for the sync_sched_exp_online_cleanup() function.
> >
> > A subsequent commit will move the remaining expedited grace-period code
> > from tree_plugin.h to tree_exp.h.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c     | 545 +-----------------------------------------------
> >  kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 564 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 566 insertions(+), 543 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> >
> 
> I've always wondered why you chose to only have a header file instead
> of the traditional x.h/x.c split for declarations and
> definitions(looking at tree_plugin.h). Is there any particular reason
> for this?

I didn't want to worry about function-call overhead, and doing it this
way allowed inlining.  Perhaps if link-time optimizations end up being
used heavily, I should go to the usual .h/.c split.

							Thanx, Paul