On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:09:13PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > So I didn't understand what was wrong with:
> > >
> > > #define __this_cpu_read(pcp) \
> > > (__this_cpu_preempt_check("read"), raw_this_cpu_read(pcp))
> > >
> > > And idem for all others. This is 1) shorter to write; and 2) makes it
> > > blindingly obvious that the implementations are actually the same.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. It just increases the scope of this patch to
> > require modifications to arch code and I already have trouble enough
> > following through on all the issues that were raised so far.
> >
>
> But non of your raw ops touch arch code... /me confused.
Yes that is intentional to limit scope. Renaming would require arch
changes.
The __this_cpu_xxxs are defined in arch code. Look at x86 arch
implementations for example. arch/x86/include/asm/percpu.h. s390 also has
this. Not sure if other arches do.
--
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/
