Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20 | | From | Robert Love <> | | Date | 09 Dec 2002 03:21:55 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 02:03, george anzinger wrote:
> > > + IF_SMP(if (old_base && (new_base != old_base)) > > > + spin_unlock(&old_base->lock); > > > + ) > > > > Like here..... SMP dependent ifdef's of spinlock usage... shudder > > > Well it does seem like a waste to do spinlock ordering code > on a UP system...
Well the spin locks will compile away if !CONFIG_SMP, and then the compiler will remove the empty branch.
But this is not just cleanliness: doesn't this evade the preempt_disable() in the spin_unlock() on !CONFIG_SMP+CONFIG_PREEMPT?
Robert Love
- 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/
|  |