Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: local_add_return | Date | Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:22:56 +1030 |
| |
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 10:31:55 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > I think we have two different use-cases here : > > - local_t is useful as-is for things such as a tracer, which need to > modify an element of data atomically wrt local interrupts. The > atomic_long_t, in this case, is the correct fallback. > - local_count_t could be used for fast counters.
Hi Mathieu,
Complete agreement.
I guess I'm biassed towards local_t == counter version, something else == nmi-safe version because that's what it was originally. Looking through the tree, there are only 5 users: module, dmaengine and percpu_counter want a counter, and tracing and x86 nmi.c want nmi-safe. There are several other places I know of which want local_t-the-counter.
I'll prepare a patch which adds nmi_safe_t, and see how it looks. There's no amazing hurry on this, so I won't race to hit the merge window.
Thanks! Rusty.
| |