[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHz2CGWfwx+SOTurpW2fO4LsB08tp2ANw+k6aa6bGL=15LNScQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:25:41 +0800
From: Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@...il.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
daniel.wagner@...-carit.de, gaofeng@...fujitsu.com,
stephen@...workplumber.org,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netprio_cgroup: explicitly init the early_init field
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> NACK, for the same reason that it doesn't make sense for net_classid.
> Early_init should already be zero. What problem are you trying to solve here?
Hi, Neil,
I'm sorry I should have made this more clear.
Sure, for this global variable struct, if not initailized, its all
fields will be initialized
to 0 or null(depending on its type). The point here is no to deprive
the rights of compiler/linker of doing this initialization, it is mainly for
documentation reason. Actually this field's value would affect how ->css_alloc
should implemented.
Concretely, if early_init is nonzero, then ->css_alloc *must not* call kzalloc,
because in cgroup implementation, ->css_alloc will be called earlier before
mm_init().
I don't think that the value of one field(early_init) has a so subtle
restrition on the another field(css_alloc) is a good thing, but since
it is there, docment it should be needed.
Thanks,
Jianyu Zhan
--
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