[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102110802.17453.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:02:17 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anton@...ba.org,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:14:16 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily
> > fixed. This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means
> > that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when
> > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. It finally reduces the actual allocation of
> > cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have.
>
> Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that
> they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with.
Yes; it'll be a fair bit of arch churn, but it can be done in stages easily.
I thought about marking them all __deprecated but that just annoys people.
And yes, this is definitely .39+.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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