Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb() | Date | Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:21:55 +0000 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> If gcc did that then it would need to generate static instances of > inlined functions within individual compilation units. It would be a > disaster for the kernel. For a start, functions which are "inlined" in kernel > modules wouldn't be able to access their static storage and modprobing > them would fail.
Do you expect a static inline function that lives in a header file and that has a static variable in it to share that static variable over all instances of that function in a program? Or do you expect the static variable to be limited at the file level? Or just at the invocation level?
> Does mn10300's get_cycles() really count backwards?
Yes, because the value is generated by a pair of cascaded 16-bit hardware down-counters.
> The first two callsites I looked at (crypto/tcrypt.c and fs/ext4/mballoc.c) > assume that it is an upcounter.
Hmmm... I didn't occur to me that get_cycles() was available for use outside of arch code. Possibly it wasn't so used when I first came up with the code.
I should probably make it count the other way.
David
| |