![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:07:27 +1100, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> said: Rusty> Sorry, after thought, I've reverted to my original position. the Rusty> original SMP per_cpu()/this_cpu() implementations were broken. Rusty> They must return an lvalue, otherwise they're useless for 50% of cases Rusty> (ie. assignment). x86_64 can still use its own mechanism for Rusty> arch-specific per-cpu data, of course. What's your position about someone taking the address of this_cpu(foo) and passing it to another CPU? IMO, the effect of this should be allowed to be implementation-dependent. If you agree, perhaps it would be good to add a comment to this effect? --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||