Re: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR

[Christoph Lameter]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:15:58AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Percpu pointers are in a different address space and using
> > ZERO_SIZE_PTR directly will trigger sparse address space warning.
> > Also, I'm not entirely sure whether 16 is guaranteed to be unused in
> > percpu address space (maybe it is but I don't think we have anything
> > enforcing that).
>
> Another thing is that percpu address dereferencing always goes through
> rather unintuitive translation and 1. we can't (or rather currently
> don't) guarantee that fault will occur for any address 2. even if it
> does, the faulting address wouldn't be anything easily
> distinguishible.  So, unless the above shortcomings is resolved, I
> don't really see much point of using ZERO_SIZE_PTR for percpu
> allocator.

The same is true for the use of NULL pointers.

--
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/