From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754061Ab0LGPB2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:01:28 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:51908 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752983Ab0LGPB1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4CFE4BE0.9040203@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:59:44 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Pekka Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [Use cpuops V1 04/11] x86: Use this_cpu_ops for current_cpu_data accesses References: <20101206171618.302060721@linux.com> <20101206171638.595205962@linux.com> <4CFE41F8.7040400@kernel.org> <4CFE4294.30001@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/07/2010 03:46 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> This belongs to the previous patch, right? I'll move it over and >>> apply 03 and 04. I think routing these through percpu is okay but if >>> anyone wants these to go through x86, scream. >> >> Ooh, was too fast. I think mixing the use of percpu accesses to >> cpu_info and the wrapper macro current_cpu_data is quite confusing. >> There aren't too many current_cpu_data users in x86 anyway. Can you >> please make the conversion complete? I'm moving the above misplaced >> chunk into 03 and not applying 04 for now. > > We cannot make that conversion complete since we cannot obtain the address > if we use a this_cpu operation. Then its better to drop this patch. No, I was talking about dropping current_cpu_data macro. We can use __this_cpu_ptr() for addresses. I just find it very confusing to mix current_cpu_data and using direct percpu accessors on cpu_info. Thanks. -- tejun