Hello, Linus. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:28:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Description for 7340a0b152 "this_cpu: Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and > > generic this_cpu_* operations" should explain the above three. > > I don't think that's relevant. > > Sure, they have semantics, but the semantics are stupid and wrong. > Whether they are documented or not isn't even the issue. I was trying to point Pekka to documentation so that at least the existing semantics are clear. > Being "generic" is not actually a good thing. Not when we're talking > about random details like this. Yeah, I generally agree that reducing the API would be great. Given the usage, I think (or at least hope) dropping preemption protected ones wouldn't hurt much but it might be worthwhile to keep __this_cpu_*() - the ones which expect the caller to take care of synchronization - w/ assertion on irq disabled. Christoph, what do you think? What would be the minimal set that you can work with? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
