On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:33:20PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the > > include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are > > modified to involve the check before any operation. > > > > So this_cpu_ptr() is the one with the check, and __this_cpu_ptr() is the > one without. But for the other this_cpu ops __this_cpu_$OP() is going to > be the one with a check and this_cpu_$OP() the one without? > > Sounds like a bloody marvelous idea :/
Well it was the easiest way to get the preemption checks in given. __this_cpu has no checks like __this_cpu_ptr before this patchset. We could rename __this_cpu_ptr to raw_cpu_ptr to make it symmetric. A simple alias would be good for starters. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
