Andrew wrote:
> > > > +#define CPU_PTR(__p, __cpu) SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((__p), per_cpu_offset(__cpu))
> > >
> > > eek, a major interface function which is ALL IN CAPS!
> > >
> > > can we do this in lower-case? In a C function?
> >
> > No. This is a macro and therefore uppercase (there is macro magic going on
> > that ppl need to be aware of). AFAICR you wanted it this way last year. C
> > function not possible because of the type checking.
>
> urgh. This is a C-convention versus kernel-convention thing. The C
> convention exists for very good reasons. But it sure does suck.
>
> What do others think?
A few, key symbols get to be special ... short but distinctive names
that become (in)famous. The classic was "u", for the per-user
structure, aka the "user area", in old Unix kernels. In people's
names, a few one word or first names such as "Ike", "Madonna", "Ali",
"Tiger", "Cher", "Mao", "OJ", "Plato", "Linus", ... have become
distinctive and well known to many people.
How about "_pcpu", instead of CPU_PTR? "_pcpu" is a short, unique
(not currently in use) symbol that, tersely, says what we want to say.
Yes - it violates multiple conventions. "The Boss" (Bruce Springsteen)
gets to do that.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
