Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add thread_info_cache_init() to all archs
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2008-04-14 02:14:36
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:38:26 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
+#ifndef thread_info_cache_init +#define thread_info_cache_init do { } while(0) +#endifThis trick does cause a bit of a problem: it is undefined which arch header file is to provide the alternative definition of thread_info_cache_init.I this case it's well defined: thread_info.h. Maybe I should add a comment ?quoted
So we can (and have) ended up in the situation where the override appears in different files on different architectures and various screwups ensue.Yup.quoted
So I'd suggest that we have a bigfatcomment telling implementors which file the override should be implemented in. And make sure that this arch file is directly included from within sched.h.Will do.quoted
I have a suspicion that we can still get in a mess if .c files include the per-arch file and don't include sched.h, but I forget where this happened and why it broke stuff.In this case, there's only one call site and will only every be one, so that shouldn't be a problem. I don't see init/main.c not including sched.h
As long as init.c directly includes sched.h, and as long as sched.h directly includes thread_info.h and as long as all architectures which provide the override put it in their thread_info.h, and as long as the same applies to all future .c users, we're good. That's a lot of "as long as"'s ;)
quoted
Sigh. A nice, coded-in-C implementation within each and every architecture remains the best implementation, and all the little tricks-to-save-typing have failure modes.Well, I started doing it in all arch, and people around here told me that was not a good idea , that it would be trouble if the prototype ever had to change (adding an arg, etc... though very unlikely to happen in that case, granted).
Bah. Use of grep and basic typing skills: not so hard.
quoted
otoh, if only one .c file will ever call this function then I think that all problems are solved by a) moving the above ifdeffery into the .c file b) adding a comment explaining which arch file must provide the override c) directly including that file from within the .c file.I can definitely do that. I have no problem either way. I can add to all archs too, it's just that whatever way I choose, some people won't be happy with it :-) Anyway, I'll move the ifdeferry to init/main.c then.
Thanks ;) I'm still wounded by my recent encounter with set_softirq_pending() and or_softirq_pending().