Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT) | | Subject | Re: softirq parameters | | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 10:38:23 -0700
Matthew Wilcox wrote: > what do you guys think about this patch? nobody's using the data argument > to the softirq routines, but most of the routines want to know which > CPU they're running on. I would vote no on this. While no one is currently using the data argument, it would be _hard_ to replace it if it were needed. The cpu, on the other hand, is available regardless of it being passed or not and thus does not _need_ to be passed.
I totally disagree. It is easy to put the specified argument back if people really need it, because so FEW people use softirq's directly.
It's a 5 minute grep + edit job to put it back. Prove me wrong.
Next, show me one case where it is actually useful to be able to specify this argument even theoretically! All such examples end up being addresses or tables which could be made available to the softint handler itself. Remember, softint's are only for core subsystems and are to be used rarely. Tasklets foot the bill for almost anything else.
Furthermore, this is one of the most important hot paths in the entire kernel, any simplification and or improvement in code generated to implement these paths is desirable.
I fully supporty Matthew's change. - 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/
|  |