[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> - it makes it clear that this should be fixed, preferably by just having
> some way to initialize SRCU structs staticalyl. If we get that, the fix
> is to just replace the horrible "initialize by hand" with a static
> initializer once and for all.
> Hmm?
> Totally untested, but it compiles and it _looks_ sane. The overhead of the
> function call should be minimal, once things are initialized.
> Paul, it would be _really_ nice to have some way to just initialize that
> SRCU thing statically. This kind of crud is just crazy.

I looked into this back when SRCU was first added. It's essentially
impossible to do it, because the per-cpu memory allocation & usage APIs
are completely different for the static and the dynamic cases. They are a
real mess. I couldn't think up a way to construct any sort of uniform
interface to per-cpu memory, not without completely changing the guts of
the per-cpu stuff.

If you or someone else can fix that problem, I will be happy to change the
SRCU-based notifiers to work both ways.

Alan Stern

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: 2006-11-16 23:07    [W:0.093 / U:3.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site