Re: [BKPATCH] Read-Copy Update 2.5

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <20020827022239.C31269@in.ibm.com> you write:
> +static struct rcu_data rcu_data[NR_CPUS] __cacheline_aligned;

Not "static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data)"?

> +/* Fake initialization to work around compiler breakage */
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, cpu_quiescent) = 0L;

static?  And I assume you're talking about the tendency for gcc 2.95
to put uninitialized static vars in the bss, even if they are marked
as having a section attribute?  If so, you should say so.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> +/* Fake initialization to work around compiler breakage */
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t[2], rcu_preempt_cntr) = 
> +			{ATOMIC_INIT(0), ATOMIC_INIT(0)};
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, *curr_preempt_cntr) = NULL;
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, *next_preempt_cntr) = NULL;

Also static I assume?

Other than that, it looks good.  You should probably cc: Ingo Molnar
as it touches the scheduler...

Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.