[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:02:07 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>,
Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PERCPU] Remove & in front of this_cpu_ptr
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I was thinking above this_cpu_*() ops. Let's make it as conspicious
> as reasonably possible. It's a similar problem with declaring per-cpu
> arrays - there are a couple ways to do it and there's no way to
> automatically reject the one which isn't preferred. I don't know.
> Maybe all we can do is periodic sweep through the source tree and fix
> up the "wrong" ones.
Both ways are working just fine. I'd like to use more of these though and
would like to tighten things up a bit before doing sweeps through the
kernel.
--
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