Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix.

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <20020906095743.A35@toy.ucw.cz> you write:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Actually Rusty what's the big deal, add an "initializer"
> > > arg to the macro.  It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't lose
> > > any space in the kernel image, and the macro arg reminds
> > > people to do it.
> > > 
> > > I think it's a small price to pay to keep a longer range
> > > of compilers supported :-)
> > 
> > I disagree.  They might not have a convenient (static) initializer, in
> > which case it's simply cruel and unusual, to work around an obscure
> > compiler bug.
> 
> Ugh? of course it will always have convient initializer, namely zero.

What if you really need to initialize them at runtime?  You're putting
a static initializer there simply to mask an obscure toolchain bug.
I'd really prefer dotting:

	/* FIXME: Initializer required so gcc 2.96 doesn't put in BSS */
	DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xxx) = 0;

everywhere, which can be deleted later, to enforcing it for everyone
in the infrastructure when it doesn't always make sense.

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