Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix. | Date | Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:45:02 +1000 |
| |
In message <20020906095743.A35@toy.ucw.cz> you write: > Hi! > > > > Actually Rusty what's the big deal, add an "initializer" > > > arg to the macro. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't lose > > > any space in the kernel image, and the macro arg reminds > > > people to do it. > > > > > > I think it's a small price to pay to keep a longer range > > > of compilers supported :-) > > > > I disagree. They might not have a convenient (static) initializer, in > > which case it's simply cruel and unusual, to work around an obscure > > compiler bug. > > Ugh? of course it will always have convient initializer, namely zero.
What if you really need to initialize them at runtime? You're putting a static initializer there simply to mask an obscure toolchain bug. I'd really prefer dotting:
/* FIXME: Initializer required so gcc 2.96 doesn't put in BSS */ DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xxx) = 0;
everywhere, which can be deleted later, to enforcing it for everyone in the infrastructure when it doesn't always make sense.
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |