[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140922193451.GA23177@master>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:34:51 -0500
From: Joe M <joe9mail@...il.com>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] ipv4: do not use this_cpu_ptr() in preemptible
context
Hello Eric,
> > > v2: use latest and shiny raw_cpu_ptr(), as it seems the latest
> > > incantation of ever changing percpu interface.
> > >
> > > net/ipv4/ip_tunnel.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> The below grep shows 3 uses of this_cpu_ptr, whereas the patch only
> replaces 2 instances. Just want to check if that is ok.
>
> grep --ignore-case --exclude-dir=".git" --recursive this_cpu_ptr ip_tunnel.c
> __tunnel_dst_set(this_cpu_ptr(t->dst_cache), dst, saddr);
> idst = this_cpu_ptr(t->dst_cache);
> tstats = this_cpu_ptr(tunnel->dev->tstats);
grep --ignore-case --exclude-dir=".git" --recursive this_cpu_ptr *.c
ip_input.c: struct ip_rt_acct *st = this_cpu_ptr(ip_rt_acct);
ip_vti.c: tstats = this_cpu_ptr(dev->tstats);
route.c: p = (struct rtable **)__this_cpu_ptr(nh->nh_pcpu_rth_output);
route.c: prth = __this_cpu_ptr(nh->nh_pcpu_rth_output);
tcp.c: return __this_cpu_ptr(p);
Is it ok for ip_vti.c and ip_input.c to use this_cpu_ptr?
Thanks
Joe
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists