From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753728AbZFEThB (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:37:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752734AbZFETgy (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:36:54 -0400 Received: from smtp3.ultrahosting.com ([74.213.175.254]:55141 "EHLO smtp.ultrahosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752400AbZFETgx (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:36:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:36:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: Christoph Hellwig cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Olaf Weber , mingo@elte.hu, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx 07/11] xfs_icsb_modify_counters does not need "cpu" variable In-Reply-To: <20090605192206.GA23547@lst.de> Message-ID: References: <20090605191819.376530498@gentwo.org> <20090605191851.584051004@gentwo.org> <20090605192206.GA23547@lst.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) 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 On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Looks good to me. While you're at it you might also remove the > superflous cast of the this_cpu_ptr return value. Ok. > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Btw, any reason this_cpu_ptr doesn't do the preempt_disable itself > and has something paired to reverse it? Would break the symmetry with the atomic per cpu ops introduced in the same patch. Putting preempt side effects and RMWs together is making things a bit complicated. Also if the caller manages the preempt explicity (like this piece of code) then may be better to have separate statements for clarity.