In message <15955.32295.830237.912@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write:
> Rusty Russell writes:
> > The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
> > per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(
>
> Ah yes. I totally missed that. (Shakes head in disbelief.)
<shrug> It's an easy thing to miss.
> > I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
> > worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?
>
> In my case (perfctr driver) it means not being able to use per-cpu
> stuff at all since I need to be able to build it modular. Or I have
> to hide per_cpu() behind private macros that fall back to an [NR_CPUS]
> implementation in the modular case. I can live with that.
Well, there's kmalloc_percpu() there already. But perfctr certainly
won't hit the "more per-cpu data than the core kernel" case, from my
brief reading of the code. If something does, then the core kernel
minimum can be increased (which is a little hacky, but hey).
Thanks,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:27 EST