Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tue Aug 26 2014 - 19:05:15 EST
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
Then its going to be difficult to find. This is related to the
cpumark_var_t handling and should be defined close to where it is
introduced and discussed.
> > Regarding naming:
> > this_cpu_ptr_cpumask_var()
> > 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/