From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: percpu tree build warning Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:44:08 +1030 Message-ID: <200911252144.08686.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20091125214219.f37935e8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091125105004.GA18163@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:43873 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752148AbZKYLOF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091125105004.GA18163@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:20:04 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > If yes then that needs to be fixed in the percpu tree. per-cpu variables > used to have a __per_cpu prefix and that should be maintained - the two > namespaces are obviously separate on the logical space, so they should > never overlap in the implementational space either. No, we've been through this. sparse annotations replace the per_cpu prefix now per-cpu vars can be used withn other than per-cpu ops (ie. their address can be usefully taken). The prefix crutch predated sparse. And it was certainly never supposed to let people write confusing and crap code like this. Rusty.