Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Linus.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:28:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Description for 7340a0b152 "this_cpu: Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and
> > generic this_cpu_* operations" should explain the above three.
> 
> I don't think that's relevant.
> 
> Sure, they have semantics, but the semantics are stupid and wrong.
> Whether they are documented or not isn't even the issue.

I was trying to point Pekka to documentation so that at least the
existing semantics are clear.

> Being "generic" is not actually a good thing. Not when we're talking
> about random details like this.

Yeah, I generally agree that reducing the API would be great.  Given
the usage, I think (or at least hope) dropping preemption protected
ones wouldn't hurt much but it might be worthwhile to keep
__this_cpu_*() - the ones which expect the caller to take care of
synchronization - w/ assertion on irq disabled.

Christoph, what do you think?  What would be the minimal set that you
can work with?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/