[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1498523.4b875.147f8a0e3c8.Coremail.yizhouzhou@ict.ac.cn>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:53:19 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: "Zhouyi Zhou" <yizhouzhou@....ac.cn>
To: "Florian Westphal" <fw@...len.de>
Cc: "Zhouyi Zhou" <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>, pablo@...filter.org,
kaber@...sh.net, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] netfilter/jump_label: use HAVE_JUMP_LABEL?
Thanks Florian for reviewing
> -----Original Messages-----
> From: "Florian Westphal" <fw@...len.de>
>
> Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL doesn't ensure HAVE_JUMP_LABEL, if it
> > is not the case use maintainers's own mutex to guard
> > the modification of global values.
CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL says the user wants to use jump labels.
But we also need the toolchain to support it.
That is reflected in CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO=y, and if both are
set then HAVE_JUMP_LABEL is set to true.
> I don't understand this patch.
>
> What is the problem you are fixing?
There is basically no real problem here.
This patch only tries to make kernel code that using
static_key infrastructure appears "unified"
>
> The intent is to only use static_key infrastructure
> if user has enabled CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL.
The other parts of kernel either use #ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL,
or use no "#ifdef" at all(the two exceptions are netfilter
and powerpc modules which I send patches to both).
Jason has suggested me to make the patches:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/20/761
"Unified" is the reason, I guess :-)
so rookies like me can have unified examples to follow
Cheers
Zhouyi
--
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