Re: module changes

[Rusty Russell]

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> Rusty Russell writes:
>  > The problem is that then you have to have to know whether this is a
>  > per-cpu thing created in a module, or not, when you use it 8(
> 
> Ah yes. I totally missed that. (Shakes head in disbelief.)

<shrug> It's an easy thing to miss.

>  > I agree with you (and John) about disliking the limitation, but is it
>  > worse than the current no per-cpu stuff in modules at all?
> 
> In my case (perfctr driver) it means not being able to use per-cpu
> stuff at all since I need to be able to build it modular. Or I have
> to hide per_cpu() behind private macros that fall back to an [NR_CPUS]
> implementation in the modular case. I can live with that.

Well, there's kmalloc_percpu() there already.  But perfctr certainly
won't hit the "more per-cpu data than the core kernel" case, from my
brief reading of the code.  If something does, then the core kernel
minimum can be increased (which is a little hacky, but hey).

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.