From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:44:37 -0600 > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:48:00 -0600 > > > >> I'm not doing get_cpu/put_cpu so does the comment make sense > >> in relationship to per_cpu_ptr? > > > > It is possible. But someone would need to go check for > > sure. > > Verified. > > hard_start_xmit is called inside of a > rcu_read_lock_bh(),rcu_read_unlock_bh() pair. Which means > the code will only run on one cpu. > > Therefore we do not need get_cpu/put_cpu. > > In addition per_cpu_ptr is valid. As it is just a lookup > into a NR_CPUS sized array by smp_processor_id() to return > the address of the specific cpu. > > The only difference between per_cpu_ptr and __get_cpu_var() > are the implementation details between statically allocated > and dynamically allocated per cpu state. > > So the comment is still valid, and still interesting it just > should say per_cpu_ptr instead of __get_cpu_var. > > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I've already removed the comment, so you'll have to give me a patch that adds it back with the new content :-) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
