[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1102102310491.31804@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:13:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
anton@...ba.org, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 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.
Wrong. __deprecated is not annoying enough. See __do_IRQ(). The
__deprecated warning was ignored for years. It might work if it pops
up in every file compiled :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
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