From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
epasch@de.ibm.com, hare@suse.de
Subject: Re: static DEFINE_PER_CPU vs. modules
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:24:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200405051124.57679.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040505012947.5e8c4050.akpm@osdl.org>
On Wednesday 05 May 2004 10:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > The patch below still changes the common, i.e. non-ia64/x86_64, per-cpu
> > implementation so that STATIC_DEFINE_PER_CPU is not static for modules
> > and static DEFINE_PER_CPU is forbidden for modules.
>
> What's the advantage in this? The previous patch which killed the compile
> if someone sticks a `static' in there seemed sufficient?
One of Davids concerns was that simply removing the static is wrong because
- it confuses people by putting local symbols in the global namespace, and
- the resulting binary is less efficient even for the non-module case.
The previous patch was a sufficient fix for the original bug, the new
patch also addresses these concerns but is otherwise identical and will
result in the same compile error for code that is potentially broken.
Arnd <><
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-05 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-03 15:41 static DEFINE_PER_CPU vs. modules Arnd Bergmann
2004-05-03 17:50 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-03 18:01 ` Richard Henderson
2004-05-03 18:37 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-03 22:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-05-03 23:12 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-04 8:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-05-04 2:38 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-05-04 16:29 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-04 19:03 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 19:15 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-04 19:23 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-04 19:45 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-05 8:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-05-05 8:29 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-05 9:24 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2004-05-05 9:33 ` Rusty Russell
2004-05-05 16:17 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-05 3:18 ` Richard Henderson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-05 17:42 Martin Schwidefsky
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=200405051124.57679.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--cc=epasch@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox