From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:43:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49DF935E.8030607@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904101118470.4583@localhost.localdomain>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
>> Actually, all of this has been discussed on lkml; here is the latest
>> variant that makes everybody more or less happy, at least there are
>> no objections from percpu folks and Martin (similar fix should work
>> for s390 as well).
>
> Is there any reason why this version of DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION wouldn't
> work on _any_ architecture? IOW, do we even need the #ifdef's and
> per-arch #define?
It should work for all archs but only alpha and s390 require __weak__
and other archs can use actual static or global definitions, but then
again we'll need to add the __per_cpu_multiple_def_ thing to make sure
no two static definitions clash anyway, so there isn't much point in
keeping things separate.
I was waiting for responses on the original thread. Is everyone okay
with having the 'static per-cpu variables in different compile units
can't have the same name' restriction?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-10 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-10 15:12 [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu Al Viro
2009-04-10 15:47 ` Al Viro
2009-04-10 16:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-10 16:50 ` Al Viro
2009-04-10 17:05 ` Al Viro
2009-04-10 17:14 ` Al Viro
2009-04-10 18:05 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2009-04-10 18:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-10 18:43 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-04-10 19:02 ` Tejun Heo
2009-04-10 19:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-10 19:40 ` [GIT PULL] percpu + mutex fixes Ingo Molnar
2009-04-16 10:21 ` Al Viro
2009-04-14 7:45 ` [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu Martin Schwidefsky
2009-04-14 9:01 ` Tejun Heo
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=49DF935E.8030607@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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