From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:28:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111220202854.GH10752@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwwjAtiiM5V3LfebmtKAOzxZXk-VzJ3U7PJAc1VjxK69Q@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-20 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-29 18:02 [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4 Pekka Enberg
2011-11-29 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-29 19:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 9:47 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-20 16:23 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-20 19:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 20:28 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-12-21 8:08 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-21 15:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 17:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 2:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-22 16:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-28 10:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-22 14:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 16:08 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 17:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 18:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-22 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-23 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-23 20:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 15:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 17:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-05 19:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-05 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-22 18:47 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 8:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 15:20 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111220202854.GH10752@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.