Re: [BKPATCH] Read-Copy Update 2.5

From: Dipankar Sarma (dipankar@in.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 08:58:55 EST

Next message: Stephen Samuel: "Re: interrupt latency"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Loop devices under NTFS"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [BKPATCH] Read-Copy Update 2.5"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:11:57PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> I think it gets both static and non-static wrong.

Is this problem specific to certain versions of 2.95 gcc ?

For "static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, fake_struct);", I get this
with gcc 2.95.4 -

.section .percpu
        .align 4
        .type fake_struct__per_cpu,@object
        .size fake_struct__per_cpu,4
fake_struct__per_cpu:
        .zero 4
        .ident "GCC: (GNU) 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)"

It seems to be in .percpu section. I can't go back to the gcc that gave
us problems at the moment.

>
> Why don't we just specify that DEFINE_PER_CPU()'s must
> have explicit initializers then we never need to think
> about this ever again.

Like DEFINE_PER_CPU(type, var, initializer) ?
For now, I will remain paranoic and keep the initializers.

Thanks

-- 
Dipankar Sarma  <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
-
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/

Next message: Stephen Samuel: "Re: interrupt latency"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Loop devices under NTFS"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [BKPATCH] Read-Copy Update 2.5"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:19 EST