On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > Ugh.... include hell. :( Does putting the accessors in percpu.h make > any difference? Given the tricky nature of cpumask_var_t, I think > type checking can be pretty useful.
Then its going to be difficult to find. This is related to the cpumark_var_t handling and should be defined close to where it is introduced and discussed. > > > Regarding naming: > > > > this_cpu_ptr_cpumask_var() > > > > is ok? > > Wouldn't this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr() be a bit more natural? Ok. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
