[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904111108.08323.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:08:06 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, rmk@....linux.org.uk,
starvik@...s.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org, davem@...emloft.net,
cooloney@...nel.org, kyle@...artin.ca, matthew@....cx,
grundler@...isc-linux.org, takata@...ux-m32r.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, rth@...ddle.net,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC] percpu: use dynamic percpu allocator as the default percpu allocator
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:23:25 pm Tejun Heo wrote:
> It's generally a good idea to use uniquely
> distinguisible identifier for static symbols anyway to help debugging.
Sorry, I can't let this statement stand. It's completely wrong: use the
shortest clear name, always.
> If this limitation is acceptable, I think we should also add the dup
> build failure thing to the generic definition too tho so that such
> cases can be discovered before they hit alpha and s390 later.
>
> Any objections?
Yes. If we decide that static per-cpu is unsupportable, let's not hide the
damn thing. We just make it give a compile warning if we can, patch out the
current cases, and make checkpatch.pl warn on new ones.
Don't silently override "static". Don't come up with stupid justifications.
Accept with open-eyes that it's evil, just a lesser evil.
Thanks,
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