lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Rusty Russell wrote:

    > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:14:16 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Ingo,
    > > >
    > > > A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily
    > > > fixed. This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means
    > > > that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when
    > > > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. It finally reduces the actual allocation of
    > > > cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have.
    > >
    > > Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that
    > > they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with.
    >
    > Yes; it'll be a fair bit of arch churn, but it can be done in stages easily.
    > I thought about marking them all __deprecated but that just annoys people.

    Wrong. __deprecated is not annoying enough. See __do_IRQ(). The
    __deprecated warning was ignored for years. It might work if it pops
    up in every file compiled :)

    Thanks,

    tglx



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-10 23:17    [W:0.022 / U:29.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site