Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2008 04:29:46 -0500 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [patch 02/41] cpu alloc: The allocator |
| |
Andrew wrote: > > > > +#define CPU_PTR(__p, __cpu) SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((__p), per_cpu_offset(__cpu)) > > > > > > eek, a major interface function which is ALL IN CAPS! > > > > > > can we do this in lower-case? In a C function? > > > > No. This is a macro and therefore uppercase (there is macro magic going on > > that ppl need to be aware of). AFAICR you wanted it this way last year. C > > function not possible because of the type checking. > > urgh. This is a C-convention versus kernel-convention thing. The C > convention exists for very good reasons. But it sure does suck. > > What do others think?
A few, key symbols get to be special ... short but distinctive names that become (in)famous. The classic was "u", for the per-user structure, aka the "user area", in old Unix kernels. In people's names, a few one word or first names such as "Ike", "Madonna", "Ali", "Tiger", "Cher", "Mao", "OJ", "Plato", "Linus", ... have become distinctive and well known to many people.
How about "_pcpu", instead of CPU_PTR? "_pcpu" is a short, unique (not currently in use) symbol that, tersely, says what we want to say.
Yes - it violates multiple conventions. "The Boss" (Bruce Springsteen) gets to do that.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
| |