[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E450EE.9010502@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:01:34 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu
Hello, Martin.
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> I would like to get rid of that SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR mess. The patch from
> Ivan will allow this, it uses a dummy variable to void the effect of a
> static modifier for percpu variables in modules. The percpu variable
> itself will be defined non-static, my gut feeling is that this is a
> dirty little trick that might bite us in the future.
> Another solution which I personally would prefer is to ban the use of
> static percpu variables. Then the compiler will use the GOT to get the
> address of percpu variables without any dirty tricks.
Hmmm... even if we can make combination of DECLARE_PER_CPU() and
static DEFINE_PER_CPU() trigger compile error? That pretty much
implements most of what the programmer intends by "static" but yeah
it's a bit convoluted.
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