* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 11/27/2009 02:41 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > But allowing &dr7 is outright dangerous - and not particularly clean
> > either.
> >
> > Nothing tells us that it's a percpu variable and it blends into the
> > regular namespace while most of the operators on it are special
> > (__get_cpu_var(), per_cpu(), __this_cpu(), etc.).
> >
> > What if someone writes &dr7 in preemptible code? It's dangerous to do it
> > and a quick review wont catch the mistake. Seeing &per_cpu_dr7 in
> > clearly preemptible code does raise alarms on the other hand.
> >
> > So i think it should be valid to take the address of it and unify the
> > static and dynamic percpu space ... if it's prefixed properly: what's
> > wrong with &per_cpu_dr7?
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, reg0);
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, reg1);
>
> static void my_fn(void)
> {
> unsigned long reg0 = per_cpu_var(reg0);
> unsigned long reg1 = per_cpu_var(reg1);
> unsigned long *p = &per_cpu_var(reg0);
>
> // blah blah
>
> if (some cond)
> p = ®1; // oops meant &per_cpu_var(reg1)
>
> // blah blah
>
> this_cpu_inc(p);
At least to me a typo like this would stick out like a sore thumb during
review.
I'd recognize ®1 as a stack local variable immediately, and when i
see it being used in this_cpu_inc() i'd go 'huh' immediately.
OTOH, the two examples of confusion i gave you in my previous mail would
be far less obvious. The 'visual distance' to a percpu variable
definition is greater (it's at least file scope in 95% of the cases), so
i wouldnt be able to 'see' which the percpu variables are, from a code
context.
Anyway, YMMV.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
