On Friday 19 December 2008 14:05:14 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Rusty Russell (rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > But can we turn what you call "nmi_safe_t" into "local_atomic_t" then ? > Because we have to specify that this type must only be used as part of > per-cpu data with preemption disabled, and we also specify that it is > atomic. > > Plus, nmi_safe_t does not make much sense on architectures without NMIs, > where we sometimes disable interrupts to make the modification "atomic" > wrt all other interrupts that can happen. But those archs can use local_t. I don't like either name local_t nor atomic_local_t, but renaming sucks too. OK, how about a different approach? Since there's really only one case where we need this local_t property outside arch-specific code, how about we define ARCH_LOCAL_T_TRACE_SAFE for x86? Then some trace-specific typedef like "trace_counter_t" which goes to local_t or atomic_(long?)_t? Should be a simple patch and pretty clear. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|