Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.1-pre5: per-cpu areas | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:52:01 +1100 |
| |
In message <15505.30281.414005.400815@napali.hpl.hp.com> you write: > >>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:07:27 +1100, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.a u> said: > > Rusty> Sorry, after thought, I've reverted to my original position. the > Rusty> original SMP per_cpu()/this_cpu() implementations were broken. > > Rusty> They must return an lvalue, otherwise they're useless for 50% of cas es > Rusty> (ie. assignment). x86_64 can still use its own mechanism for > Rusty> arch-specific per-cpu data, of course. > > What's your position about someone taking the address of this_cpu(foo) > and passing it to another CPU? IMO, the effect of this should be > allowed to be implementation-dependent. If you agree, perhaps it > would be good to add a comment to this effect?
Well, if you want to do TLB tricks, sure. I don't know if that's a good idea (Linus seems opposed to it). But I'll add the comment.
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |