[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: module changes
In message <15955.32295.830237.912@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> Rusty Russell writes:
> > The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
> > per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(
> Ah yes. I totally missed that. (Shakes head in disbelief.)

<shrug> It's an easy thing to miss.

> > I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
> > worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?
> In my case (perfctr driver) it means not being able to use per-cpu
> stuff at all since I need to be able to build it modular. Or I have
> to hide per_cpu() behind private macros that fall back to an [NR_CPUS]
> implementation in the modular case. I can live with that.

Well, there's kmalloc_percpu() there already. But perfctr certainly
won't hit the "more per-cpu data than the core kernel" case, from my
brief reading of the code. If something does, then the core kernel
minimum can be increased (which is a little hacky, but hey).

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.043 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site