On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:11:28 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:10:58 am Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > While a percpu variable is defined and used in completely different > > > ways: > > > > > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, dr7); > > > > > > and is used via: > > > > > > __get_cpu_var(dr7); [[Fixed -- RR]] > > > > The entire point of Tejun's per-cpu work is that &dr7 is now valid. A > > per-cpu pointer as if it were allocated by the dynamic per-cpu > > allocator. > > > > Your arguments are fine, but out-of-date. > > But allowing &dr7 is outright dangerous - and not particularly clean > either. That's foolish. We can now have generic per-cpu function for counters and the like. > Nothing tells us that it's a percpu variable __percpu. Again, I'm explaining what you should already know before sending email about this stuff. > and it blends into the > regular namespace while most of the operators on it are special > (__get_cpu_var(), per_cpu(), __this_cpu(), etc.). OK, you convince Linus to change __user vars to use a prefix. Then I'll agree that per_cpu_## is more kernely. Stupidest debate ever. Rusty. -- 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
