lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- add percpu_counter_mod_bh
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:25:28PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> > Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only for
> > the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation
> > for that. Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants for a new
> > set of apis?
>
> I think it may make more sense to simply convert local_t into a long, given
> that most of the users will be things like stats counters.
>

Yes, I agree that making local_t signed would be better. It's consistent
with atomic_t, atomic64_t and atomic_long_t and it's a bit more flexible.

Perhaps. A lot of applications would just be upcounters for statistics,
where unsigned is desired. But I think the consistency argument wins out.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-09 00:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans