Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:13:53 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization |
| |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:14:16 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily > > > fixed. This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means > > > that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when > > > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. It finally reduces the actual allocation of > > > cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have. > > > > Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that > > they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with. > > Yes; it'll be a fair bit of arch churn, but it can be done in stages easily. > I thought about marking them all __deprecated but that just annoys people.
Wrong. __deprecated is not annoying enough. See __do_IRQ(). The __deprecated warning was ignored for years. It might work if it pops up in every file compiled :)
Thanks,
tglx
| |