Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Tue Aug 26 2014 - 17:37:45 EST
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:33:28PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Ok I tried to change it to an inline function. The problem is the
> cpumask.h is included very early. this_cpu ops require functionality
> that is not available at that point. I think it cannot be more than a
> macro unless we define it elsewhere.
Ugh.... include hell. :( Does putting the accessors in percpu.h make
any difference? Given the tricky nature of cpumask_var_t, I think
type checking can be pretty useful.
> Regarding naming:
> is ok?
Wouldn't this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr() be a bit more natural?
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/