From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: percpu/tip tree build failure Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:37:50 +0900 Message-ID: <4B1E105E.7030208@kernel.org> References: <20091208182515.bb6dda4a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091208080509.GD4989@nowhere> <20091208082436.GA12761@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:38930 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754893AbZLHIhX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:37:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091208082436.GA12761@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Stephen Rothwell , Rusty Russell , Christoph Lameter , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Hello, On 12/08/2009 05:24 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > I have applied it - but really, the new percpu namespace changes headed > towards upstream are quite a nuisance IMO. The 3-4 (trivial to solve) > breakages i've seen so far affecting code i maintain give us an > estimation about the ongoing maintainence cost - which wont be high but > not zero either. > > The change that was forced here: > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, task_bp_pinned[HBP_NUM]); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, nr_task_bp_pinned[HBP_NUM]); > > Is it really an improvement to the old code? > > Dunno. In each specific conflict, I don't think it would be an apparent improvement but overall I do believe it's headed the right way. Well, or, at the very least, I don't see any other viable solution and you're probably the most strongly affected by the change. Sorry about the inconveniences. I'm waiting for ack for a m68k change before pushing out percpu tree. I'm not completely determined but I think I'll keep dropping per_cpu__ prefix and sparse annotation in linux-next for one more cycle as sparse annotation cleanup pass hasn't been done yet. Once new devel cycle begins, it might be a good idea to pull in percpu changes into one of the tip trees so that these nuisances can be detected during development? Thanks. -- tejun