Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: module changes | Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:15:25 +1100 |
| |
In message <15955.32295.830237.912@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write: > Rusty Russell writes: > > 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.)
<shrug> It's an easy thing to miss.
> > 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.
Well, there's kmalloc_percpu() there already. But perfctr certainly won't hit the "more per-cpu data than the core kernel" case, from my brief reading of the code. If something does, then the core kernel minimum can be increased (which is a little hacky, but hey).
Thanks, 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/
| |