Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:13:48 -0500 (CDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: change inaccurate comment |
| |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> If enclosed by preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(), maybe we could use > __this_cpu_ptr() ?
The only difference between __this_cpu_ptr and this_cpu_ptr is that this_cpu_ptr checks that preempt was disabled. __this_cpu_ptr allows use even without preempt. Preempt must be disabled here so the use of this_cpu_ptr is appropriate.
| |