[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070927.135616.37572002.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: Dynamically allocate the per cpu counters for
the loopback device.
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:44:37 -0600
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
>
> > From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
> > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:48:00 -0600
> >
> >> I'm not doing get_cpu/put_cpu so does the comment make sense
> >> in relationship to per_cpu_ptr?
> >
> > It is possible. But someone would need to go check for
> > sure.
>
> Verified.
>
> hard_start_xmit is called inside of a
> rcu_read_lock_bh(),rcu_read_unlock_bh() pair. Which means
> the code will only run on one cpu.
>
> Therefore we do not need get_cpu/put_cpu.
>
> In addition per_cpu_ptr is valid. As it is just a lookup
> into a NR_CPUS sized array by smp_processor_id() to return
> the address of the specific cpu.
>
> The only difference between per_cpu_ptr and __get_cpu_var()
> are the implementation details between statically allocated
> and dynamically allocated per cpu state.
>
> So the comment is still valid, and still interesting it just
> should say per_cpu_ptr instead of __get_cpu_var.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
I've already removed the comment, so you'll have to give
me a patch that adds it back with the new content :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists