From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:28:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111220202854.GH10752@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwwjAtiiM5V3LfebmtKAOzxZXk-VzJ3U7PJAc1VjxK69Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, Linus.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:28:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Description for 7340a0b152 "this_cpu: Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and
> > generic this_cpu_* operations" should explain the above three.
>
> I don't think that's relevant.
>
> Sure, they have semantics, but the semantics are stupid and wrong.
> Whether they are documented or not isn't even the issue.
I was trying to point Pekka to documentation so that at least the
existing semantics are clear.
> Being "generic" is not actually a good thing. Not when we're talking
> about random details like this.
Yeah, I generally agree that reducing the API would be great. Given
the usage, I think (or at least hope) dropping preemption protected
ones wouldn't hurt much but it might be worthwhile to keep
__this_cpu_*() - the ones which expect the caller to take care of
synchronization - w/ assertion on irq disabled.
Christoph, what do you think? What would be the minimal set that you
can work with?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-20 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-29 18:02 [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4 Pekka Enberg
2011-11-29 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-29 19:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 9:47 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-20 16:23 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-20 19:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 20:28 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-12-21 8:08 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-21 15:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 17:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 2:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-22 16:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-28 10:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-22 14:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 16:08 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 17:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 18:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-22 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-23 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-23 20:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 15:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 17:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-05 19:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-05 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-22 18:47 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 8:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 15:20 ` Christoph Lameter
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=20111220202854.GH10752@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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