From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753032Ab1LTU3I (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:29:08 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:43230 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752994Ab1LTU27 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:28:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:28:54 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Pekka Enberg , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4 Message-ID: <20111220202854.GH10752@google.com> References: <20111220162315.GC10752@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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