* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I strongly disagree with putting variables in file scope when
> function scope will do, [...]
Yes, you are right that single-use file scope statics 'could' be moved
function local and are syntactically superior because in that case
other functions cannot make use of
On 01/26/2014 03:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I strongly disagree with putting variables in file scope when function scope
> will do, but I do like to see static variables before automatics. Anyway,
> this is bikeshedding.
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> s/glob
I strongly disagree with putting variables in file scope when function scope
will do, but I do like to see static variables before automatics. Anyway, this
is bikeshedding.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> s/global/static/, with a big loud comment why it is okay.
>
>It would
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> s/global/static/, with a big loud comment why it is okay.
It would be a global no matter which form we use, but for
maintainability reasons I generally prefer a static put right before
the function that uses it:
static cpumask_t mask;
static func(..
s/global/static/, with a big loud comment why it is okay.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 01/26/2014 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 01/25/2014 03:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> * Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>>
>
* Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>
> On 01/26/2014 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/25/2014 03:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>>
> Fix warning:
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disab
On 01/26/2014 08:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>> On 01/25/2014 03:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
Fix warning:
arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the f
* Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> On 01/25/2014 03:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> >> Fix warning:
> >> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
> >> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the frame size of 2052 bytes is
> >> larger than 2048
On 01/25/2014 03:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> Fix warning:
>> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
>> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the frame size of 2052 bytes is larger
>> than 2048 bytes
>>
>> when NR_CPUS=8192
>>
>> We sho
* Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Fix warning:
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the frame size of 2052 bytes is larger
> than 2048 bytes
>
> when NR_CPUS=8192
>
> We should use zalloc_cpumask_var() instead.
>
> -v2: update to
Fix warning:
arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the frame size of 2052 bytes is larger
than 2048 bytes
when NR_CPUS=8192
We should use zalloc_cpumask_var() instead.
-v2: update to GFP_ATOMIC instead and free the allocated
11 matches
Mail list logo
