Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756677AbYFJReU (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:34:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752621AbYFJReG (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:34:06 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:36159 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752925AbYFJReF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:34:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:34:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Mike Travis cc: Rusty Russell , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Eric Dumazet , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch 02/41] cpu alloc: The allocator In-Reply-To: <4846AEF6.2020107@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <20080530035620.587204923@sgi.com> <20080530040011.084909898@sgi.com> <200805301546.49627.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <4846AEF6.2020107@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 566 Lines: 14 On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Mike Travis wrote: > I haven't seen any further discussion on these aspects... is there a consensus > to remove the flags from CPU_ALLOC() and use a mutex? We want to have extensable per cpu areas. This means you need an allocation context. So we need to keep the flags. Mutex is not a bad idea. -- 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/