[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49DF935E.8030607@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:43:42 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
>> Actually, all of this has been discussed on lkml; here is the latest
>> variant that makes everybody more or less happy, at least there are
>> no objections from percpu folks and Martin (similar fix should work
>> for s390 as well).
>
> Is there any reason why this version of DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION wouldn't
> work on _any_ architecture? IOW, do we even need the #ifdef's and
> per-arch #define?
It should work for all archs but only alpha and s390 require __weak__
and other archs can use actual static or global definitions, but then
again we'll need to add the __per_cpu_multiple_def_ thing to make sure
no two static definitions clash anyway, so there isn't much point in
keeping things separate.
I was waiting for responses on the original thread. Is everyone okay
with having the 'static per-cpu variables in different compile units
can't have the same name' restriction?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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