Re: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- addpercpu_counter_mod_bh

[Andrew Morton]

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:25:28PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> > Then, for the batched percpu_counters, we could gain by using local_t only for 
> > the UP case. But we will have to have a new local_long_t implementation 
> > for that.  Do you think just one use case of local_long_t warrants for a new
> > set of apis?
> 
> I think it may make more sense to simply convert local_t into a long, given 
> that most of the users will be things like stats counters.
> 

Yes, I agree that making local_t signed would be better.  It's consistent
with atomic_t, atomic64_t and atomic_long_t and it's a bit more flexible.

Perhaps.  A lot of applications would just be upcounters for statistics,
where unsigned is desired.  But I think the consistency argument wins out.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/