From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:44:37 -0600

> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
> 
> > From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
> > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:48:00 -0600
> >
> >> I'm not doing get_cpu/put_cpu so does the comment make sense
> >> in relationship to per_cpu_ptr?
> >
> > It is possible.  But someone would need to go check for
> > sure.
> 
> Verified.
> 
> hard_start_xmit is called inside of a
> rcu_read_lock_bh(),rcu_read_unlock_bh() pair.  Which means
> the code will only run on one cpu.
> 
> Therefore we do not need get_cpu/put_cpu.
> 
> In addition per_cpu_ptr is valid.  As it is just a lookup
> into a NR_CPUS sized array by smp_processor_id() to return
> the address of the specific cpu.
> 
> The only difference between per_cpu_ptr and __get_cpu_var()
> are the implementation details between statically allocated
> and dynamically allocated per cpu state.
> 
> So the comment is still valid, and still interesting it just
> should say per_cpu_ptr instead of __get_cpu_var.
> 
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

I've already removed the comment, so you'll have to give
me a patch that adds it back with the new content :-)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers