Re: [PATCH hw_breakpoint] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotationsto hw_breakpoint

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 02/18/2010 01:39 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:50:50AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeah, looks good, I'm queuing it.
> Just few comments below, for nano-considerations.
>>  	cpu_events = alloc_percpu(typeof(*cpu_events));
>>  	if (!cpu_events)
>> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +		return (void __percpu __force *)ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 
> Is this pattern common enough that we can think about a ERR_CPU_PTR ?

I thought about that but there aren't too many yet, so I just added
the ugly castings.  It would be cool if sparse can be taught that
ERR_PTR() returns universal pseudo pointer.

>>  	sample_hbp = register_wide_hw_breakpoint(&attr, sample_hbp_handler);
>> -	if (IS_ERR(sample_hbp)) {
>> -		ret = PTR_ERR(sample_hbp);
>> +	if (IS_ERR((void __force *)sample_hbp)) {
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR((void __force *)sample_hbp);
> 
> Same comments here, although I wouldn't like much a CPU_PTR_ERR or
> IS_ERR_CPU.... CPP is just so poor in magic for that.
> 
> I must confess I miss a bit the old per_cpu prefix that guarded the implicit
> separate namespace.

Yeap, I agree that the prefix had its advantages.  It's just that it
can't scale to the new situation where static and dynamic percpu
variables behave uniformly.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
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/