Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: local_add_return | Date | Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:24:45 +1030 |
| |
On Friday 19 December 2008 14:05:14 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au) wrote: > But can we turn what you call "nmi_safe_t" into "local_atomic_t" then ? > Because we have to specify that this type must only be used as part of > per-cpu data with preemption disabled, and we also specify that it is > atomic. > > Plus, nmi_safe_t does not make much sense on architectures without NMIs, > where we sometimes disable interrupts to make the modification "atomic" > wrt all other interrupts that can happen.
But those archs can use local_t. I don't like either name local_t nor atomic_local_t, but renaming sucks too.
OK, how about a different approach? Since there's really only one case where we need this local_t property outside arch-specific code, how about we define ARCH_LOCAL_T_TRACE_SAFE for x86?
Then some trace-specific typedef like "trace_counter_t" which goes to local_t or atomic_(long?)_t?
Should be a simple patch and pretty clear.
Thanks, Rusty.
| |