Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

[Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>  - it makes it clear that this should be fixed, preferably by just having 
>    some way to initialize SRCU structs staticalyl. If we get that, the fix 
>    is to just replace the horrible "initialize by hand" with a static 
>    initializer once and for all.
> 
> Hmm?
> 
> Totally untested, but it compiles and it _looks_ sane. The overhead of the 
> function call should be minimal, once things are initialized.
> 
> Paul, it would be _really_ nice to have some way to just initialize that 
> SRCU thing statically. This kind of crud is just crazy.

I looked into this back when SRCU was first added.  It's essentially
impossible to do it, because the per-cpu memory allocation & usage APIs
are completely different for the static and the dynamic cases.  They are a
real mess.  I couldn't think up a way to construct any sort of uniform
interface to per-cpu memory, not without completely changing the guts of 
the per-cpu stuff.

If you or someone else can fix that problem, I will be happy to change the 
SRCU-based notifiers to work both ways.

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/