On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:40 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thursday 12 June 2008 12:44, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Thursday 12 June 2008 10:58:01 Nick Piggin wrote: > > > On Thursday 12 June 2008 09:39, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > > 4. The modeling of local_t on atomic_t limits it to 32bit! > > > > > > > > > > Again wrong. And adding an exclamation mark doesn't make it true. > > > > > > > > Ewww ... Its atomic_long_t ahh. Ok then there no 32 bit support. What > > > > about pointers? > > > > > > sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) in Linux, right? > > > > > > If you were to support just a single data type, long would probably > > > be the most useful. Still, it might be more consistent to support > > > int and long, same as atomic. > > > > Sure, but in practice these tend to be simple counters: that could well > > change when dynamic percpu allocs become first class citizens, but let's > > not put the cart before the horse... > > Right, I was just responding to Christoph's puzzling question. > > > > Per-cpu seems to be particularly prone to over-engineering: see commit > > 7ff6f08295d90ab20d25200ef485ebb45b1b8d71 from almost two years ago. > > Grepping here reveals that this infrastructure is still not used. > > Hmm. Something like that needs the question asked "who uses this?" > before it is merged I guess. If it were a trivial patch maybe not, > but something like this that sits untested for so long is almost > broken by definition ;) Some code of mine which didn't make it beyond -mm used this small per-cpu extension. So the commit you refer to was tested. -- 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
