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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans