Rusty Russell writes:
> In message <15954.22427.557293.353363@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> > Rusty Russell writes:
> > > D: This adds percpu support for modules. A module cannot have more
> > > D: percpu data than the base kernel does (on my kernel 5636 bytes).
> >
> > This limitation is quite horrible.
> >
> > Does the implementation have to be perfect? The per_cpu API can easily
> > be simulated using good old NR_CPUS arrays:
>
> The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
> per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(
Ah yes. I totally missed that. (Shakes head in disbelief.)
> I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
> worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?
In my case (perfctr driver) it means not being able to use per-cpu
stuff at all since I need to be able to build it modular. Or I have
to hide per_cpu() behind private macros that fall back to an [NR_CPUS]
implementation in the modular case. I can live with that.
/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:25 EST