[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906031006020.15621@gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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()
On Sun, 31 May 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hmmm.. That would be a major change in semantics.
>
> It's exactly like get_cpu_var. For better or worse, let's not invent YA new
> convention.
It hink we are doing that if we go the get_cpu_ptr line. this_cpu_ptr
starts from per_cpu_ptr() and its straightforward as a special case of
per_cpu_ptr.
> So that name question doesn't really have a clear convention answer: we could
> re-use cpu_local_inc() since I think we decided to kill local_t. I slightly
> prefer it over "this_cpu_*" since we're not actually doing anything to the cpu
> itself, but I don't think anyone will get too confused and think that after
> this executes their CPU will be stepping 11. :)
local is loaded with meaning by glibc where it means thread local. The
variables here are cpu specific, not task specific.
--
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