[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012070906290.26552@router.home>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:07:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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 Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> 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.
Hmmm... Ok 21 occurrences. So two patches: Conversion and then
this_cpu_ops. Or one doing both?
--
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