lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/16] percpu: remove per_cpu__ prefix.
    Tejun Heo wrote:
    > (microblaze maintainer cc'd, hello)

    Hi,

    where is git repo with that patches?

    Thanks
    Michal

    >
    > Christoph Lameter wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
    >>
    >>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ extern void *per_cpu_init(void);
    >>> * On the positive side, using __ia64_per_cpu_var() instead of __get_cpu_var() is slightly
    >>> * more efficient.
    >>> */
    >>> -#define __ia64_per_cpu_var(var) per_cpu__##var
    >>> +#define __ia64_per_cpu_var(var) var
    >> IA64 could completely drop the macro? Tony?
    >
    > Being discussed but I think we should just add sparse annotation there
    > instead.
    >
    >>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
    >>> index 61abbd2..ec89f2a 100644
    >>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
    >>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/entry.h
    >>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
    >>> * places
    >>> */
    >>>
    >>> -#define PER_CPU(var) per_cpu__##var
    >>> +#define PER_CPU(var) var
    >> Microblaze too.
    >
    > This macro is used only in assemblies which wouldn't be covered by
    > sparse so in this case this patch series actually removes protection,
    > so I wasn't too sure about ripping the macro off. Any ideas what we
    > can do here? Just kill it?
    >
    >>> +#define PER_CPU(var, reg) __percpu_mov_op $var, reg
    >>> +#define PER_CPU_VAR(var) var
    >> Drop X86 PER_CPU_VAR
    >
    > No can do. SMP variant isn't null op.
    >
    >>> -#define percpu_read(var) percpu_from_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, \
    >>> - "m" (per_cpu__##var))
    >>> -#define percpu_read_stable(var) percpu_from_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, \
    >>> - "p" (&per_cpu__##var))
    >>> -#define percpu_write(var, val) percpu_to_op("mov", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> -#define percpu_add(var, val) percpu_to_op("add", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> -#define percpu_sub(var, val) percpu_to_op("sub", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> -#define percpu_and(var, val) percpu_to_op("and", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> -#define percpu_or(var, val) percpu_to_op("or", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> -#define percpu_xor(var, val) percpu_to_op("xor", per_cpu__##var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_read(var) percpu_from_op("mov", var, "m" (var))
    >>> +#define percpu_read_stable(var) percpu_from_op("mov", var, "p" (&(var)))
    >>> +#define percpu_write(var, val) percpu_to_op("mov", var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_add(var, val) percpu_to_op("add", var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_sub(var, val) percpu_to_op("sub", var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_and(var, val) percpu_to_op("and", var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_or(var, val) percpu_to_op("or", var, val)
    >>> +#define percpu_xor(var, val) percpu_to_op("xor", var, val)
    >> The percpu_xx definitions are now equal to __this_cpu_xx(). They could be
    >> dropped for the core.
    >
    > Yeap, will do so with further patches.
    >
    >>> #define __get_cpu_var(var) \
    >>> - (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&per_cpu_var(var), my_cpu_offset))
    >>> + (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), my_cpu_offset))
    >> == this_cpu_read(var) or this_cpu_write(var, value)
    >>
    >>> #define __raw_get_cpu_var(var) \
    >>> - (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&per_cpu_var(var), __my_cpu_offset))
    >>> + (*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), __my_cpu_offset))
    >> == __this_cpu_read() or this_cpu_write(var, value)
    >>
    >> __raw? Combination of __ and raw? Can we clearly define what each means?
    >>
    >>> - typeof(per_cpu_var(var)) __tmp_var__; \
    >>> + typeof(var) __tmp_var__; \
    >>> __tmp_var__ = get_cpu_var(var); \
    >>> put_cpu_var(var); \
    >>> __tmp_var__; \
    >> == this_cpu_read(var)
    >
    > For all of above comments, yeap, we definitely need to clean all these
    > up, but let's do that once sparse annotation is working.
    >
    >> Great work. There is lots more possible cleanup work that could be done
    >> after this patch has merged.
    >>
    >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    --
    Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
    w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
    Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
    Microblaze U-BOOT custodian


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-16 08:09    [W:2.397 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site