[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A1FAEE2.1020906@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:46:10 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [my_cpu_ptr 1/5] Introduce my_cpu_ptr()
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:16:01PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 03:16:59 am cl@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
>>>> my_cpu_ptr(xx) = per_cpu_ptr(xx, smp_processor_id).
>>> I had this implemented earlier as as get_cpu_ptr()/__get_cpu_ptr(), to match
>>> get_cpu_var() / __get_cpu_var().
>>>
>>> But other than that nomenclature quibble, it looks fine!
>> my_ seems a very odd naming. We have a lot of this_cpu naming for the
>> current cpu i nthe ctree, so I would suggest sticking to that.
>
> So this_cpu is taken. I used THIS_CPU in earlier version
> but got complaints about uppercase use. Is
>
> this_cpu_ptr()
>
> and
>
> __this_cpu_ptr()
>
> ok?
Yeap, those look fine to me. Sans the renaming, the series generally
looks good but I didn't review each conversion.
For the first patch, Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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