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    [W:0.024 / U:59.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site