From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC] cpualloc: improvements to per-cpu allocation Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:42:58 +1030 Message-ID: <200901011342.58933.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <200812310938.09912.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <200901011056.23443.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Mathieu Desnoyers , Stephen Rothwell To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:59999 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753450AbZAADND (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:13:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 01 January 2009 11:33:00 Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > I don't think it's a problem. You still can't use them directly (this > > wording was not meant to imply that), but you can now hand their addresses > > to per_cpu_ptr() etc. So zero-based x86-64 should Just Work. > > Ok so this is going to be merged for 2.6.29? Its a good cleanup and a step > forward to our goals. I'm on the fence, but you've convinced me. I'll put this in linux-next, and if there's no damage, I'll push to Linus. The actual conversions I'll send via the maintainers though. These patches have been around for a while, and though they've been polished a little more in the last week or so the changes were mainly cosmetic. Thanks, Rusty.