[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901282254.51238.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:54:50 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: kzalloc mod->ref
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 23:45:34 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > @@ -344,8 +339,11 @@ struct module
> > /* Destruction function. */
> > void (*exit)(void);
> >
> > - /* Reference counts */
> > - struct module_ref ref[NR_CPUS];
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > + char *refptr;
> > +#else
> > + local_t ref;
> > +#endif
>
> hm, that construct looks rather ugly. Is there no way to provide a clean
> data type and APIs for this that just work symmetrically on both SMP and
> UP?
Part of me agreed when I first read it, but unification means UP would do an alloc as well. Neater, but less efficient.
But maybe these days UP means embedded, and hence no modules anyway :)
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists