Re: module changes

[Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@user.it.uu.se>]

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