Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Rusty Russell wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:14:16 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > > 
> > >    A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily
> > > fixed.  This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means
> > > that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when 
> > > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y.  It finally reduces the actual allocation of
> > > cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have.
> > 
> > Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that 
> > they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with.
> 
> Yes; it'll be a fair bit of arch churn, but it can be done in stages easily.
> I thought about marking them all __deprecated but that just annoys people.

Wrong. __deprecated is not annoying enough. See __do_IRQ().  The
__deprecated warning was ignored for years. It might work if it pops
up in every file compiled :)

Thanks,

	tglx