[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B5E50D0.8050705@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:17:52 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, tytso@....edu, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
aelder@....com, hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
borislav.petkov@....com, ying.huang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org,
neilb@...e.de, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations to x86
On 01/26/2010 10:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/25/2010 07:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> In arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c, per_cpu(exception_stacks, cpu) is
>> replaced with &per_cpu(exception_stacks[0], cpu) which is equivalent
>> except that it allows per_cpu() macro to correctly drop percpu
>> designation during sparse pass.
>>
>
> Same comment as Frederic's about this... this kind of uglification
> really is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.
Hmm... I don't think it's too bad but if you don't like it that much,
probably the right thing to do is just leave it there and let sparse
whine about it. There are only three in-kernel instances at this
point, so it's not that big a deal.
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