Messages in this thread | | | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Date | Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:52:55 +0100 | Subject | Re: module changes |
| |
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/
| |