Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754922Ab0BADhO (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:37:14 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57558 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752640Ab0BADhM (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:37:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4B664AE5.2020306@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:30:45 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, tytso@mit.edu, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, aelder@sgi.com, hch@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, ying.huang@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, cl@linux-foundation.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations to x86 References: <1264432935-10453-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1264432935-10453-6-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4B5E401C.1050605@zytor.com> <4B5E50D0.8050705@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4B5E50D0.8050705@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1327 Lines: 34 On 01/25/2010 06:17 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 01/26/2010 10:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 01/25/2010 07:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> >>> In arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c, per_cpu(exception_stacks, cpu) is >>> replaced with &per_cpu(exception_stacks[0], cpu) which is equivalent >>> except that it allows per_cpu() macro to correctly drop percpu >>> designation during sparse pass. >>> >> >> Same comment as Frederic's about this... this kind of uglification >> really is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. > > Hmm... I don't think it's too bad but if you don't like it that much, > probably the right thing to do is just leave it there and let sparse > whine about it. There are only three in-kernel instances at this > point, so it's not that big a deal. > That would probably be my preference until it can be fixed in a better way. If we paper it over now, it will be forgotten -- and then someone will come along and cargo cult it for no good reason. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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/