Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | | Subject | Re: linux-next: percpu tree build warning | | Date | Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:21:50 +1030 |
| |
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:11:28 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:10:58 am Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > While a percpu variable is defined and used in completely different > > > ways: > > > > > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, dr7); > > > > > > and is used via: > > > > > > __get_cpu_var(dr7); [[Fixed -- RR]] > > > > The entire point of Tejun's per-cpu work is that &dr7 is now valid. A > > per-cpu pointer as if it were allocated by the dynamic per-cpu > > allocator. > > > > Your arguments are fine, but out-of-date. > > But allowing &dr7 is outright dangerous - and not particularly clean > either.
That's foolish. We can now have generic per-cpu function for counters and the like.
> Nothing tells us that it's a percpu variable
__percpu. Again, I'm explaining what you should already know before sending email about this stuff.
> and it blends into the > regular namespace while most of the operators on it are special > (__get_cpu_var(), per_cpu(), __this_cpu(), etc.).
OK, you convince Linus to change __user vars to use a prefix. Then I'll agree that per_cpu_## is more kernely.
Stupidest debate ever. Rusty.
|  |