[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: module changes
Rusty Russell writes:
> In message <15954.22427.557293.353363@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> > Rusty Russell writes:
> > > D: This adds percpu support for modules. A module cannot have more
> > > D: percpu data than the base kernel does (on my kernel 5636 bytes).
> >
> > This limitation is quite horrible.
> >
> > Does the implementation have to be perfect? The per_cpu API can easily
> > be simulated using good old NR_CPUS arrays:
> 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.)

> 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.

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:0.046 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site