Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:49:08 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH hw_breakpoint] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations to hw_breakpoint |
| |
Hello,
On 02/18/2010 01:39 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:50:50AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Yeah, looks good, I'm queuing it. > Just few comments below, for nano-considerations. >> cpu_events = alloc_percpu(typeof(*cpu_events)); >> if (!cpu_events) >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> + return (void __percpu __force *)ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > Is this pattern common enough that we can think about a ERR_CPU_PTR ?
I thought about that but there aren't too many yet, so I just added the ugly castings. It would be cool if sparse can be taught that ERR_PTR() returns universal pseudo pointer.
>> sample_hbp = register_wide_hw_breakpoint(&attr, sample_hbp_handler); >> - if (IS_ERR(sample_hbp)) { >> - ret = PTR_ERR(sample_hbp); >> + if (IS_ERR((void __force *)sample_hbp)) { >> + ret = PTR_ERR((void __force *)sample_hbp); > > Same comments here, although I wouldn't like much a CPU_PTR_ERR or > IS_ERR_CPU.... CPP is just so poor in magic for that. > > I must confess I miss a bit the old per_cpu prefix that guarded the implicit > separate namespace.
Yeap, I agree that the prefix had its advantages. It's just that it can't scale to the new situation where static and dynamic percpu variables behave uniformly.
Thank you.
-- tejun
| |