From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE4A6B005D for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A3A683B.7090304@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:15:55 +0900 From: Tejun Heo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V2 10/19] this_cpu: X86 optimized this_cpu operations References: <20090617203337.399182817@gentwo.org> <20090617203444.731295080@gentwo.org> <4A39ADBF.1000505@kernel.org> <4A3A53C9.4030609@kernel.org> <4A3A65F7.6070404@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4A3A65F7.6070404@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@elte.hu, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, davem@davemloft.net List-ID: Tejun Heo wrote: > Functionally, there's no practical difference but it's just weird to > use scalar as input/output parameter. All the atomic and bitops > operations are taking pointers. In fact, there are only very few > which take lvalue input and modify it, so I think it would be much > better to take pointers like normal C functions and macros for the > sake of consistency. One notable exception tho is the get/put_user() macros. In that these percpu ops behave differently depending on input parameter size might put them closer to get/put_user() than other atomic / bitops operations. Eh... I'm not so sure anymore. It's purely interface decision. Ingo, Rusty, what do you guys think? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org