[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CFE4BE0.9040203@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:59:44 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [Use cpuops V1 04/11] x86: Use this_cpu_ops for current_cpu_data
accesses
On 12/07/2010 03:46 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>>> This belongs to the previous patch, right? I'll move it over and
>>> apply 03 and 04. I think routing these through percpu is okay but if
>>> anyone wants these to go through x86, scream.
>>
>> Ooh, was too fast. I think mixing the use of percpu accesses to
>> cpu_info and the wrapper macro current_cpu_data is quite confusing.
>> There aren't too many current_cpu_data users in x86 anyway. Can you
>> please make the conversion complete? I'm moving the above misplaced
>> chunk into 03 and not applying 04 for now.
>
> We cannot make that conversion complete since we cannot obtain the address
> if we use a this_cpu operation. Then its better to drop this patch.
No, I was talking about dropping current_cpu_data macro. We can use
__this_cpu_ptr() for addresses. I just find it very confusing to mix
current_cpu_data and using direct percpu accessors on cpu_info.
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